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 ...
“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.