Posted on 03/17/2012 11:01:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
IN THE SUMMER OF 1989, Rick Santorum and a fellow associate at the Pittsburgh law firm of Kirkpatrick and Lockhart left work to drive to Three Rivers Stadium for the firm's annual softball game. Sitting behind the wheel, Santorum popped in a tape, and on came the reedy voice of a man lecturing as if to a classroom.
“Listen,” Santorum said. “Newt Gingrich.”
“Who the hell is Newt Gingrich?” the co-worker asked.
Santorum explained that Gingrich was a congressman from Georgia, and that he was the guy to listen to if you were considering a future in politics. “At the time,” says the co-worker, “I had no idea that was something Rick was interested in.” As it turned out, Santorum was already telling people he was running for Congress in the upcoming election. The tape was something he had ordered from GOPAC, Gingrich's political action committee, full of do-it-yourself campaign tips for aspiring candidates.
In recent years, of course, Gingrich's tutelage of Santorum has taken on a much more direct nature. Last September, Santorum, at 37 a Republican U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, managed the Senate floor debate as it passed its welfare bill, all the while working closely with Gingrich, now speaker of the House of Representatives and the country's most powerful Republican. Santorum, who prior to his election to the Senate last year served two terms in the House with Gingrich, is in fact known on Capitol Hill as Gingrich's protégé and his point man in the Senate. The two meet weekly for early-morning swims at the House gym.
Much of Santorum's record, thus far, has been a series of tantrums. More than a dozen times in his first few months in the Senate, Santorum took to the floor to trash Bill Clinton for not drafting a balanced-budget proposal...
(Excerpt) Read more at phillymag.com ...
“slinky man has evaded the process”
And Santorum still tries to evade the vetting process.
But it doesn’t work his way.
He claimes to be a “fiscal conservative”, but he didn’t back out from gaming the system when he could.
Between 2001 and 2004, while living around the year in Virginia with his family, Santorum had billed the Penn Hills, PA school district for $100,000 of his children’s cyber school tuition. That was a telling moment for a fiscal conservative who rails against government waste and fraud...
took the taxpayers for a ride ...never a man that abides by his christian convictions. IMO that is STEALING taxpayers hard earned money
I think this level of political skullduggery needs to stop on both sides. If we don't step back from the abyss, we'll only do the coyote all the way to the bottom.
Spirited debate is one thing. This method of assimilating liberal attacks reaches the level of betrayal of conservative values in the name of partisanship - exactly what the GOP-E does and what we all normally fight against. If we stoop to such lows to make a political point, we're little better than the GOP-E types.
And yet another re-heated left-wing attack against Santorum from 2005-2006.
Make that he endorsed PRO choice candidates and voted aye on pro choice judges! “Santorum’s “record” shows he endorsed and voted for a PRO CHOICE judges, candidates”
Even McCain voted NO on Sotomayer! Santorum crossed the line and went with the dems. Rush was on the radio at the time warning this could eventually lead to her being on the SCOTUS.
Santorum is a pious fraud! he is NO fiscal or even social conservative.
You can call it what you want, but the school tuition story cost Santorum his senator seat in 2006, when he heavily lost it 41% to 59%.
"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true."
--Albert Einstein
The two main factors in Santorum's loss were that 2006 was a bad year in general for the GOP and that the PA Dems finally ran an ostensibly pro-life candidate against him - Bob Casey Sr. was about the last true major pro-life Dem and his son banked on that reputation.
Hence the drive in 2005-2006 to peel off pro-life support for Santorum - which many in the Newt camp are embracing in their zeal to attack Santorum now, despite Santorum's stellar pro-life record as a legislator.
THIS is called a vetting process.
Once again, I'm sure we can find a similar list for just about any GOP senator.
Even McCain voted NO on Sotomayer! Santorum crossed the line and went with the dems.
Your post is breathtakingly dishonest. Santorum wasn't in the Senate for the Sotomayor SCOTUS vote. He voted for her as an appeals court judge. McCain voted against Sotomayor when there was a large public outcry for her as a Supreme court judge and he needed to try and prove his conservative bona fides.
You do the Newt campaign no favors with these kind of apples and oranges posts.
All the angst over Santorum, Newt, etc, is almost irrelevant. I am a realist. I learned that in my youth, when I fought to survive. Now, I do the same for my country in the best way I know how, with what I have left. I am sure you are doing the same and I don't fault you for any of it.
Then you dangerously underestimate the level of delusion the enemy has managed to manufacture among the Useful Idiots who support him.
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization"...--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
I always thought of it as just plain slimy.
Funny, you have embraced this article which is exactly that - a manufacture for useful idiots.
Later, two-face.
[now we all have to figure out a way to prevent any further damage]
More Tea in Capitol Hill.
Enough to start impeaching and keep impeaching until we get an American and not a Marxist, or a Catholic, or a Mormon, or any collective state cultist — in the White Hut again.
>>you have embraced this article
I’ve embraced nothing but the self-evident fact that there are character issues that you are unable to discuss in meaningful dialogue.
This may come as a shock to you, but some folks still believe that the character of the POTUS should be more than just a facade.
And I guess that disqualifies Newt for you as well, then.
>>And I guess that disqualifies Newt for you as well, then.
In this case, the confessing and forgiven Weavil is the lesser one.
Pennsylvania law requires school districts to pay ONLY for resident students who enroll in cyberschools.
Santorum and family were living in Virginia at the time, and they STILL live in Virginia. They can live anywhere they want, but they didn't have the right to charge a school from another state to pay for their children homeschooling.
Under PA state law, Santorum was still a resident there. A minor detail that the libs using this as an attack against him failed to acknowledge
THey may be embarrased that Ron Paul had enough support in Missouri that Paul could team up with Romney to attack Santorum’s delegates, and Gingrich didn’t.
>>Catholics are not Americans?
That would depend upon whether the dogmatic political and militaristic framework they operate within is a product of an Individual mind, which Almighty God Hath Created Free — or one they were simply regurgitating because that’s what some parrot, adorned with vestigial plumage left over from the Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian Empire’s state-established cult of sun-worshiping Eunuchs, told them to think.
Anyone who will fight for the right of other Individuals to explore and articulate the relationship between themselves and their creator, regardless of their religious taxonomy, is an Ok American in my book. Don’t you agree?
Following March 9, 1994, nomination by President Bill Clinton, confirmation by the United States Senate on June 15, 1994, and reception of commission on June 16, 1994, Paez became the second Mexican American to sit on the bench of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a district that covers Los Angeles.[2]
Paez was confirmed by Senate on March 9, 2000, by a 59-39 vote, more than four years after President Clinton first nominated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Paez waited 1,506 days to be confirmed, which at that time was the longest wait for a vote by any judicial nominee in U.S. history.
In a 2009 decision, he held that a San Francisco resolution urging the Vatican to withdraw a directive against same-sex adoptions does not violate the Establishment Clause. [3]
In a 2011 decision, he issued the majority opinion upholding a lower court's blocking of the most controversial parts of the Arizona SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect.[4]
This story originally appeared in the December 1995 issue under the title, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Santorum."You have to ask yourself two questions. First, why did this paper ressurect an old hit piece on Santorum, and CHANGE the headline to the "pro-choice" quote?
And second, why are conservatives who can have no doubt about Santorum's pro-life record posting this decade's old article now, when the supposed Gingrich strategy is for Santorum to get as many votes as possible to stop Romney?
This article certainly won't keep Romney from getting a single vote, and will likely help Romney win more votes in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
This article is from 1995.
In an article written by a liberal, quoting liberals attacking Santorum back in 1995 when he was a Newt Gingrich Protoge, shouldn't you be embarrased that what you have been saying about Santorum is exactly like what the liberal hacks were saying to attack him in 1995?
Or maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see certain "Gingrich" supporters agreeing wholeheartedly with the opinions of pro-abortion liberals being quoted in a liberal article written to attack Gingrich and Santorum for upsetting their liberal bastion in the senate and beating their "good-old-boy" Wofford for the seat.
By Eric Konigsberg
That is the quote from Rick Santorum, as said to Eric Konigsberg, the author of the article which appeared in Philadelphia Magazine in December 1995.
You may have your own ideas about the quality of the magazine, but it has been around since the 1960's, monthly on both the newsstands and by subscription, and is definitely not a "city paper" type of periodical.
Why links to hard-left articles about Karen Santorum.
Show me in the article where the source of that quote is given. That’s the point. It isn’t.
The point in the article was that before it was an issue for him, he hadn’t really thought about it and was “pro-choice”. Some of the strongest people I know in the pro-life movement were the same way. They opposed abortion, knew it was “wrong”, but weren’t involved in the movement, and considered themselves “pro-choice”, in not wanting to impose their views on others.
But when they were confronted with the issue, and had to think about it, they realized that this was not a tenable position, and became outspokenly pro-life.
What I DID like about the article is how even when trying to smear Rick, they had to admit that Rick came out as pro-life even though he was running in a district that was pro-abortion, where there was only a minority of republicans who were pro-life. The article even derides him for being too conservative for his district, and for not “representing” his constituents well enough.
Mostly, the article simply asserts things, or quotes 3rd-hand sources (like they provide a “quote” from his wife, but it turns out the “quote” was given to them by the abortion-doctor who had once delivered her and then shacked up with her when she was barely old enough to do so.
It’s sad to see so many supposed “Gingrich supporters” so happy about this article, and so willing to say they agree with the liberals who are quoted. It certainly is against the supposed “Gingrich strategy” of pairing up to beat ROmney, but the Missouri caucus may show that wasn’t much of a strategy anyway.
“So why did you change?” I asked.
“I sat down and read the literature. Scientific literature.”
“So religion had nothing to do with it?”
“Oh, well, of course,” he said. “And religion too. It was both of those, science and religion.”
The author further states "when I visited him" - it is an interview - what part of that don't you get?
There is no indication Santorum ever supported abortion either. No indication he ever sent a check to Planned Parenthood, or wrote a letter pushing for abortion rights, or did anything to “support” abortion.
Just a quote from sometime in the early 1990s where Santorum says he was “pro-choice” until he thought about the issue, and became a strong pro-life advocate. He ran for Congress in 1990, so that was over 22 years ago.
Fault him for not attending pro-life rallies when he was young. Although I haven’t seen any indication that Gingrich was involved in the pro-life movement either before he came to congress. A lot of people don’t get involved in the issue until they have to. I’d say that there probably aren’t many of us around who were involved as youths.
I was doing pro-life rallies and handing out pro-life literature in the 1970s. But I appreciate all those people who came to the realization later in life that they too had to act to save the unborn.
And there is no lead-in for the pro-choice quote.
This is a manufactured quote.
This article was published one year after he was first elected to the Senate. Attack articles usually come before elections - I think this was just trying to show exactly who was the junior senator from PA. Remember, this was Philadelphia Magazine and while Specter was from Philadelphia, Santorum was from the western part of the state and virtually unknown in the eastern part (it is the way PA is).
The headline actually wasn’t the headline on the article when it was written in 1995.
The newspaper just dredged up this article, re-posted it to the internet, and changed the headline to make it more salacious, and to attract so-called “Gingrich supporters” to post it to pro-conservative web sites to help liberals attack the conservatives in the race.
It seems to have worked.
[That is the quote from Rick Santorum, as said to Eric Konigsberg]
I don’t see it in there.
Looks to me that the title itself is a Lampoonish means of baiting readers into clicking into the rabbit hole — wherein it becomes evident that there are real questions regarding the candidate’s character that should be vetted.
For example, if someone is in a relationship (regardless of state-religious sanctification) and a third party covets one of the members of that relationship for himself - is the third party's covetousness not still prohibited?
Ex 20:14
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
NIV
Ex 20:17
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
NIV
Obviously such notions aren't "fiscally" conservative, but - once upon a time - they were considered to be CONSERVATIVE, before the RINOs came along with their demoralized NewSpeak dictionary.
Others have pointed out that you are accepting the word of a liberal pro-abortion doctor who shacked up with a girl 40 years his younger (who he had actually DELIVERED).
But interestingly, he claims she said this to him when he was running for congress. But the quote everybody is hanging onto says Santorum was pro-choice “until he ran for congress”. And the article shows specific statements during his run for Congress showing he was pro-life then.
So according to this pro-abortion, cradle-robbing letch of a doctor, the girl he shacked up with lied to him about Santorum being pro-choice while running for Congress. In 1990. 22 years ago.
Here’s what’s worse. Several Gingrich supporters have vigorously defended Newt Gingrich for his first affair, by arguing that he was really a “victim” in his first marriage, because his wife was his former teacher, who therefore took unfair advantage of the younger Newt.
But other so-called “Gingrich supporters” have actually attacked Rick Santorum’s WIFE for shacking up with the liberal pro-abortion doctor they are so willing to believe here. And yet, he was a 60-year-old who delivered her as a baby, and was friends of the family. So you’d think that if poor Newt was a victim, that so was she — and yet they attack her for it, while attacking others for not understanding how Newt was a victim.
And their attack on Karen Santorum, as you pointed out, negates their defense of Newt leaving his first marriage. That's what happens when you pick up liberal hatchet jobs - they often do as much, if not more, damage to your own candidate as well.
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that Santorum is pro-life.
There is a lot in that article that most of us don't know about Santorum and since he will be vetted quite well by the democrats if he is the nominee, should be of interest to his supporters.
What results have we had from Newt since he was booted as Speaker?
Talk, talk, talk, and much of it was for liberal causes like global warming.
The only reason the plentiful manufactured hit pieces aren’t out on Newt is because he has no way to win.
Perhaps you could dredge up a few on Romney from time to time in the effort to balance things out a bit.
So, what is your point? Do you want Romney?
It seems to be clear now that Newt supporters will never accept Santorum as the nominee, even though he clearly is going to end up with a lot more states, a lot more delegates, and a lot more votes than Newt. Which means at the convention, if they have their way, they will make certain Santorum is not our pick.
Meanwhile, it has long appeared that a good number of Santorum supporters would never accept Newt, and not because he cheated on two wives, but for what he did politically in THIS century, including pre-presidential-run highly publicized positions on global warming, health care mandates, support for the medicare prescription drug plan, tarp, and other less-than-conservative actions.
Heck, last August Rick Perry was totally unacceptable because in 2001 he supported letting illegal immigrants pay college tuition at the in-state level. But now we don’t even TALK about immigration anymore, since it wouldn’t be good for Gingrich if we did.
And since Newt is hardly winning anything anymore, he’ll never enter the convention with enough support to be anything but a spoiler. And he doesn’t play spoiler very well, missing the opportunity to throw his support in Alaska caucus to Santorum to stop Romney (as Paul did in Missouri with Romney), and not having enough support IN Missouri to counter the Romney/Paul alliance).
So you have to wonder, why is this article and others attacking Santorum being posted so regularly now? The “Gingrich Plan” we are told is for both men to get as many votes as possible, but these articles are designed to destroy Santorum, which will only help Romney (even if some votes go to Gingrich, they were already anti-Romney votes, so all this does is push SOME voters to Romney).
So, what happened to the “Gingrich plan”? Was it a ruse all along? Is this scorched earth — “If people won’t vote for OUR candidate, they can just be stuck with Romney”?
Last week, after Santorum won the two southern states, I held out a slim hope that it could be a game-changer, which we needed; something to shake up the race.
But this article pretty much seals it for me. After months praying that we wouldn’t be stuck with Romney, it appears that a good number of conservatives are pushing for just that result now.
He hangs up and dials his scheduler in Pittsburgh. “Hey,” he says, “it's Rick. You know, this education thing that I'm supposed to speak at for an hour? It sounds like a real yawn.”
He listens to the other end. “Has it been scheduled yet?” he asks. “I can't talk for an hour at an education seminar.”
He listens some more.
“See, this is some pretty detailed stuff. I can't talk for an hour on this stuff. I'll go if it's like a greeting or a photo op. Can I, like, just answer some questions or something?”
------------
That entire exchange reads like a satirical piece from over at DU about how stupid conservatives are. Are you telling me a guy smart enough to become Senator in his thirties would be so dumb as to blurt out something like that in front of a reporter?
You have far more faith in the integrity of the MSM than I do. This guy is now at the NY Times, and we know how often they lie.
And just the fact that Philly Mag changed the headline to the quote in question is telling. They loathe Santorum and will do whatever dirty tricks they can to sandbag him.
Unfortunately, too many Newt supporters feel the same way.
[the girl he shacked up with lied to him about Santorum being pro-choice while running for Congress.]
Has anybody bothered recently to ask “the girl”?
If nothing else, this whole affair provides motivation for young couples-to-be to consider the question of unequal yoking: Neonatal nurse shacks up with abortionist doctor (who delivered her no less) and then marries anti-abortionist lawyer politician.
What kind of moral framework is ANY of that behavior operating in?
Were there any mistakes made? What was learned from those errors?
What does the character made self-evident through that learning process, or the lack thereof, imply about the character expected to be exercised as POTUS?
These are, or at least SHOULD BE, reasonable questions on the mind of the citizenry.
But then, who’s winning American Idol and Dancing with the Starz between commercials for Viagra and Sleeping pills — THAT’s what’s important to the McSheeple these days, isn’t it./s
If Newt is serious about the spoiler role for a brokered convention, he needs to take the steps to hamstring Romney, even if that means Santorum would get more votes in a given state primary or caucus. I hope he is serious. Too many of his supporters don't seem to be.
Well, let’s see. Karen Santorum went from shacking up with a predatory geezer to getting married and being a home-schooling mom. Sounds to me like she learned her life lessons. And it seems to me that a lot of folks are tossing aside her redemption to try and score political points against her husband.
Sadly, that seems to be the approach, if not by intent, then by deed.
Great post. Too bad a lot of folks won't give it the consideration it deserves.
Winning as conservative for the Senate TWICE in a blue state. Where has Newt won an election outside of a conservative district in Georgia?
Most importantly, Santorum has run a Presidential campaign where he actually has a chance to win the nomination. Newt is finished. You have a better chance of being struck by an asteroid than he does of being the nominee. Failing to realize that is doing nothing but helping Romney.
I have read almost all of this sorry thread...right down to the questioning of the “yoking” of a 20 something Karen Santorum.
Pathetic...the pretzel logic that “conservatives” are twisting and turning to make Rick Santorum “the enemy.”. I gotta give it to Obamney...he is playing his wanna be “base” really well. “Look over there ya Newtrons...there is a 1995 PhillyRag story...enjoy!!! Oh and don’t forget, Romney 2012!”
All this while Dear Leader fundraises and Myth scorches the earth the a surgical precision. “We” argue over who is more pristine (here is a clue...none of them) but beating up Santorum (and by default Gingrich) just seals Obamney (1.0—slightly more tan; 2.0—slightly less tan).
Interesting:
http://emdashes.com/2006/01/eustace-google-the-strange-sad.php
Speaking of arguments, there are posters on the New Yorker Forums who say they’re close to the Bremmers and that Konigsberg misrepresented them, took quotes out of context, knew the story he was going to write before he wrote it, etc., etc. I’m sure people in that community are feeling exposed and sore, but these are familiar complaints; we all know the polls about how little people trust journalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.