Posted on 02/12/2012 8:26:00 PM PST by mitchell001
Back in the 2008 primary, Santorum supported moderate, liberal Romney, while Norris backed conservative Mike Huckabee. Santorum seems to be a man for all seasons and not the solid conservative that he calls himself now. In the link below, he documents Santorum's liberal voting record while in the Senate. http://t.co/Cwe00ltH We really need to vet Santorum much more thoroughly, since with this liberal voting record, Obama will have a field day with Santorum in a debate.
Reading that made me dizzy and gave me a headache.
I, and nearly all Freepers at the time, would dispute that that Huck was considered here to be conservative in 2008. When it finally came down to Mitt, Huck or McCain the majority of Freepers then, like Santorum, picked Mitt. Many picked him at about the same time as Rick did, at the last chance to stop McCain, a week before he dropped out. They may not have been happy about it, and they may not want to remember it, but it is history. Chuck Norris is a good man, but I don’t hold his Huck support in his favor.
As was posted on the other thread, regarding the fact Santorum backed Romney:
To: katiedidit1So did Mark Levin in 2008 who did not view Huckabee or McCain as conservatives. You going to trash him too?
Here’s the story:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223558/rally-romney/mark-r-levin
So who was right in 2008, Levin or Norris? I trust Levin's gut instincts over Norris'.
Romney has never been the answer, not in 2008, not now, not ever.
Amen.
Only a loser would vote for that Massachusetts Liberal!
Levin supportered Mitt in 2008 to stop McCain.
Saintorum supported Mitt because he really was a believer in Mitt.
“Mitt is the man. A really great leader who I REALLY DO BELIEVE.” - Saintorum, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu50Hb61jVQ&feature=player_embedded
Big deal. They both picked losers in 2008.
“In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”
- Rick Santorum, February 1st, 2008
I think they both had valid points, but they were ENDORSEMENTS, which by their nature are political, or personal.
Chuck Norris really loved Huckabee, so I can see why, since Santorum rejected Huckabee, Norris won’t endorse Santorum — that’s what makes endorsements political. It’s why candidates endorse, so they get endorsements back. Like why Christine O’Donnell endorsed Romney, why Haley endorsed Romney — because Romney supported them.
It’s why, some people say, Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in his senate primary.
I guess if Santorum had endorsed Huckabee in 2008, Norris might have endorsed Santorum in 2012. But would supporting Huckabee in 2008 made Santorum a better Presidential candidate today? Not really.
I find the whole endorsement-bashing thing to be distasteful. I should think that former Herman Cain supporters would be the first to reject this line of argument, given that Herman Cain endorsed Romney, for the same reasons, and at the same time, as Santorum did, and also said very nice things about Romney.
I don’t say this, as someone might come along and falsely claim, to “build Romney” up. My argument is that endorsements in the last throes of a presidential contest are more political than expositive, and we shouldn’t put so much emphasis on them 4 years later. 2012 is a much different landscape than 2008 was.
Romney WAS standing up for conservative principles at that moment in the 2008 race. A lot of people didn’t TRUST him, but his platform was a solid conservative platform. He had support from pro-life, anti-illegal-immigrant, and fiscal conservative factions (not all, but some, of each; like Tancredo for immigration). Not based on a solid record, but solely on his promises and platform.
As I argued at the time — if you have one guy who says exactly what you want to hear, but you don’t trust him, and another guy who you trust, but who says he’ll do things you oppose, you might as well support the guy you don’t trust, because he MIGHT do what he says he’ll do, while the other guy will certainly do what HE says he’ll do.
That was an argument in 2008 when there were 3 candidates left, and not an argument for now, when we have two candidates more conservative in both history AND their platforms than Romney. So don’t anybody give me crap about posting an historical argument.
To be believed, then you would have to quit doing it. Romney was the worst candidate in 2008, and he still is, and he always will be, Romney does not belong in the Republican party.
Six days later the anti-Reagan, Mitt Romney, exited the race.
Sheeple conservatives are back Rev. Sactimonious because his daughter got sick ... period.
Think about it. That is when his numbers went up.
PEOPLE
ARE
SO
STUPID.
Santorum is a big-government liberal, social conservative.
I support Newt and then Santorum, others may do the reverse. When this is over, I hope it's one of them, I won't be complaining unless it's romney...
You may complain if it is Santorum who loses big time to obama because he is not a conservative who abides by the constitution.
What has Santorum done to advance conservatism - don’t mean ‘big gov conservatism’ he advanced, but constitutional conservatism, meaning small gov, no wealth redistribution just to be ‘compassionate’ ......
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.