Clear conservative candidate? United Republican party?
Watching the most liberal Republican candidate ever attack our guys from the right is nauseating. First, Romney, with his Massachusetts record went after Perry who has a wildly successful conservative resume as a 10 year governor of Texas. Then he went after Newt, and now Santorum. All three have 20 page records of conservative accomplishment, where he as none. It is sickening. Much like McCain before him, the media is the liberal Republican’s friend until the day he secures the nomination.
Newt endorsed Scuzzyfavor in NY. Demint endorsed Romney. Bachmann voted for Carter over Reagan.
No kidding. This is ridiculous.
But more importantly who did Romney (the severe conservative) endorse in 2004? Did Romney endorse Toomey? Apparently not.
What we do know is this:
Less than a year after the 2004 election, Governor Romney was in DC begging Arlen Specter for LIHEAP money for his state.
Maybe that's not a formal endorsement, but it definitely shows where Romney's priorities lie.
What this is devolving into, is another election where I’m sick of everyone in the race.
For the most part, Santorum’s big infractions are listed as having taken place around 1994 to 1996. If those infractions are merely indicators of something he still believes today, then I’m hard pressed to support him.
On the other hand, we have a clown whose own party members refused to return him to a position they had the power to return him to. Now he wants the party to support him in his presidential bid.
Santorum doesn’t have executive leadership experience. Someone else does, and failed at it. He was going to be booted by his own subordinates, and quit instead.
What is painfully evident, is that one guy is held to account for everything, and the other person isn’t allowed to be talked about at all.
Instead we get this endless list of wonderful things he is supposed to want to do for us, but of course nobody can address them. That certainly does cause one to want to support the guy huh.
There are times when promises of future action cause me joy, and there are times when promises of future action actually cause me to scratch my head and wonder why all of a sudden now?
The list of promises grows every day. At some point you have to wonder if gentler winters and more mid 70s days in future summers are going to be promised next.
It’s as if someone has researched every beef Conservatives ever had, and they are one by one being addressed. And while that would generally warm the cockles of my heart, they are steadily growing more absurd by the day.
You’ve got an old girl-friend. She’s been problematic in the past, but suddenly she wants you back real bad. The promises are flowing, and at some point it hits you, she couldn’t possibly do all this. It just isn’t in her.
I’m not saying I’m there yet, but I am getting damned close.
Thats rich!.
Last time I checked McCain didn't switch parties and vote for Obamacare.
I am not a Santorum supporter, but I’d have much more respect for him if he’d explain his Specter endorsement like you just did: “Look, the guy endorsed me so I returned the favor.” He sounded a little disingenuous in the debate trying to explain it was all about future judges.
Another little bit of hypocrisy that irritates me is when we destroy one candidate for saying something, then praise another’s brilliance for saying the same.
Just go back and find a thread about Michele Bachmann’s $2 gas promise.
There is a difference between ideology and party politics.
Party politics force you to compromise your ideology at times......especially with regard to endorsements and campaign support.
Anyone who cannot figure out the difference is an imbecile.
Clear conservative candidate? United Republican party?
Excuse me, but Arlen Specter is not who put Sanctorum in the Senate; the voters of Pennsylvania did. What about his "sense of obligation" to them? And I could care less about Sarah's loyalty to McLain. She betrayed her followers AND herself in doing so. Anytime you have favors being given and returned between old chums, you have the rule of man, not the rule of law.
I guess Romney couldn’t attack him for his 2008 endorsement mistake, where Santorum endorsed Romney. ;-)
Sarah Palin’s case is somewhat different as she was honor bound to endorse McCain once she accepted the VeeP “slot” on his “ticket.” Had she not done that the media would have immediately questioned why she would have accepted the VeeP nomination from someone she would not endorse.
I often wonder if Sarah ever wishes she had turned McCain down and not taken the Veep nomination. It is my belief that McCain and his campaign staff's micro management of Sarah did significant damage to her future political viability. In fact, given the nefarious actions of the GOP-E that we have seen in this election cycle; one could speculate that they might have deliberately “sandbagged” Sarah just to eliminate her chances for any future high political office. (Do not forget that previous to the 2008 election, Gov Palin had taken on and done great damage to the GOP establishment “insiders” in Alaska.)
LLS
The winds change pretty quickly.
Tim Pawlenty has endorsed Michele Bachmann for reelection to congress.
That is a stupid comparison, the 2008 Presidential ticket not turning on itself for no reason, on the verge of the 2010 election, has nothing to do with Senator Santorum.
Is this is the leftist tradition of two evils make a good? Everybody does it, so forget about it. :)
I have not heard Rick appologize or take back what he did with snarlin’ Arlen. He makes excuses and offers rationalizations on it. Rino loyality is really a pitiful excuse.
He also voted for “no child left behind.” Centralizing power over education in the US is about as bad as it can get (next to centralizing power over life and death - health care). He’s a go with the flow, good ole boy without much brain action happening.