Posted on 02/23/2012 11:35:15 PM PST by true believer forever
And as for the pro-abortion-rights presidential candidate Santorum endorsed, when Specter launched a long-shot bid for president in 1995, Santorum — his fellow Pennsylvanian — was one of his few high-profile endorsements.
For Specter, who later became a Democrat, his pro-abortion-rights position was a centerpiece of his campaign. Specter believed that anti-abortion activists were a “fringe” group hijacking the Republican party.
“There are clearly more Republicans who are pro-choice,” Specter told Newsday’s Susan Page. “Up until now, I am the only person willing to take on the fringe.” After Specter dropped out of the race, he led an ill-fated movement to change the anti-abortion provision in the Republican party platform.
Santorum was effectively returning a favor by endorsing Specter despite his aggressive pro-abortion-rights views. Specter had supported Santorum’s 1994 Senate campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Wow. Aren’t Sanctimonium’s supporters supposed to be the only true, principled conservatives backing the only true principled conservative, who isn’t afraid to stand up for his principles when everybody else fails, who can be counted on to do the right thing, no matter. The consistent principled conservatives?
I have no problem with politics as usual, that’s what they are - politics as usual. Sanctimonium wants everyone to believe he is the Anointed One (”God called me to do this, as he has said). His supporters are doing the same thing barack’s supporters did in 2008 - they think he’s the Messiah, and he isn’t... he’s just another politician.
What’s really interesting to me is how his supporters make the same old arguments made by the same old politicians since evermore when defending his positions or activity... and tear others down for their faults and shortcomings... POLITICS AS USUAL...
Reagan was a democrat.
That meant we never should have voted for him because he had a “D” after his name?
Jim DeMint: “I was there when we had the numbers, and we didn’t have the principles.” Regarding his opposition to Mike Castle, DE Rino.
Reagan said “Never speak ill of a fellow Republican”. All these guys are just making Obamas next TV spot. Time to end these demolition derbies call debates and start answering questions on how they would handle dismantling Obamas regime.
As for principled polictian, what about Newt sucking up tp Pelosi....hmmmmmmmmmm.
He’s the one who insisted he was a pure little dove. He explained endorsing Specter because he weighed the judge appointments on a higher level than anything else. How does he justify endorsing Specter for President to? Does he want a pro-abortion President?
The next thing you’ll be saying is that Santorum sucked up to and took money from Freddy Mac, one of the major causes for the meltdown and election of Obama. It’s a good thing I’ve already cast my vote for Santorum.
Now that Romney’s back is to the wall, we get this dumped on us.
I have posted this info about Santorum countless times, but now its big news.
Santorum must be destroyed so Romney can win next Tuesday.
But I will say that I hope Rick wins so Romney can fall and Newt can rise.
I support Newt over Rick partly because of Santorum’s “team player” past.
Funny, I don't remember any Santorum supporters calling for the debates to end when Santorum had his one good debate. OTOH, when Newt had a bad debate, I don't recall him whining or calling the debates demolition derbies. You decide what that means...
..."start answering questions on how they would handle dismantling Obamas regime."
Newt's already answered your question:
As for principled polictian, what about Newt sucking up tp Pelosi....hmmmmmmmmmm.
s n i c k e r.... So you are NOT a doer of Reagan just a quoter of him?
Yeah.
This stuff wouldn’t be as big of a deal if Santorum hadn’t been such a prig and presented himself as Mr. Sanctimonious. This is now his grave and he will lay in it.
Newt Gingrich is lucky on this endorsement business, since apparently he never endorses anybody but himself.
I really love when the primary colors (name of a book) get unmasked in the dead of the night. Your post is probably the most instructive in what the voters that pay attention know about Newt.... HE is not nor ever was a PROUD GOP-e 'insider'!!!!!
And Dede Scozzafava. Or are we allowed to mention that?
Actually, that is not accurate. Keeping it only to the primary season, Newt has said on the debate stage, that Santorum was out there in front on Iran, and leading the way on that issue, when people seldom give him (RS) credit for that. He said good things about Perry, while Perry was still running, and I am sure there are others...
Rick Santorum is too insecure to say anything nice or laudatory about any of his opponents... and has taken quite a few immature nasty shots at Newt, who was Santorum’s mentor...
As far as Newt endorsing himself, how many times (honestly) have you heard Santorum say, “I’m the only candidate who... fill in the blank”...? Honestly? Then, of course, when God Himself has called you to run, as Santorum has told his supporters, there’s no need to endorse yourself. much.
But of course, climb upon a mountain and shout it from the mountain tops. Newt is more human than most, but, unlike the most, he admits when he is WRONG. The most uncommon make up of most politicians is to never admit they are wrong. Remember politics is a team sport and that gives each individual player a 'big time' excuse for what a politician votes.
Is this what is meant by 'Scottish law'? Never having to say you are WRONG???? Because everybody is doing it????
I think I might disagree. Charles is a very consistent Santorum supporter, and says nasty things about Newt morning, noon or night. I have been the recipient of many of his such posts - he is a little more prolific late at night, though, you are right about that.
Well, I will include Charlie in my response. 'You know', rules and all.
I actually believe Charlie is a closet Romney supporter, IF MY MEMORY serves me from last election. Oh, Charlie, I will be more than happy to retraction my memory recall IF I am WRONG.
Another pro-Romney article from NR.
Gingrich had no trouble endorsing Dede Scozzafosa, who was a pro-abortion advocate. And that wasn’t in 1996, it was in 2009, against a solid conservative, not against Bob Dole.
Of course, more than a few pro-lifers here at Free Republic had no trouble enthusiastically supportting Scott Brown for Senator either, even though he was pro-abortion.
And of course, Specter had no chance of winning the nomination in 1996. And Bob Dole, who was nominally pro-life, fought to water down the abortion platform plank, saying we should embrace pro-abortion republicans. And before the primary season started, he stopped supporting an abortion ban: “Senator Bob Dole’s statement on Sunday that he would no longer support an unconditional ban on abortion prompted a wave of anger today from the Republican right and escalated an already fierce ideological war in the party.”
Santorum was wrong to endorse Specter, both in 1995 for a hopeless presidential run, and in 2004, although that’s easier seen in retrospect. But applying a 2011 sensibility to decisions made in 1996 seems pointless — I mean, what is the actual argument here?
It can’t be that Santorum secretly is pro-abortion — he is the strongest pro-life candidate we have. It can’t be that we are worried he’ll appoint pro-abortion judges, or have pro-abortion positions, that would be absurd.
It can’t even be that, as President, he’ll somehow use his position to endorse people we wouldn’t support, because the reason for his endorsement of Specter in both cases is clearly a unique situation, where he was politically beholden, and returned a political favor, which in 1995 was meaningless as Specter was never going to win the presidency.
Senator DeMint actually endorsed Romney in 2008, so it is clear that good men make bad decisions (Gingrich-Scozzafoza, Palin-McCain, O’Donnell/Ayotte/Haley-Romney, and Perry-Giuliani are more examples).
So I think many of us have problems with this line of attack not for the actual charge (as I said, I think he made a mistake in both cases), but because of the unspoken false implications of the charge.
I posted the article because it has some pertinent FACTS about Santorum, which I believe people need to be aware of; there have been hundreds of anti-Newt articles posted here by Santorum supporters, so I guess that would make them pro-Romney, then, by your standards... You Santorum supporters need to up your response quality...
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.