Replies

You guys make some decent points - but I am not certain your conclusions are correct. But I respect the thinking.

So for the sake of this argument, I will somewhat buy in, NOW:
this brings up the entire foundation of the Santorum campaign up til now - which is he is the wind driven snow who stands up for principles and does not play these kinds of games.

He refused to give Rick Perry leeway for the political realities of immigration in Texas and pretended that living in Pennsylvania gives someone a notion of the Mexican reality. (why Rick didn’t burn him on this is another topic altogether, and speaks to Perry’s weakness off the cuff).

He refuses to give Mitt leeway (OK< we all do, but I’m making a point about Santorum logic here) on the realities of Massachusetts. And he refuses to give Newt leeway for the realities of dealing with a bad senate (which he was a part of ) and a liberal President when Newt was speaker.

I am actually ok with political reality at times versus hard line principle. It’s just funny that suddenly Rick has that religion now that he’s a major candidate.

You’re correct. Any Republican Senate Judiciary Chairman would have supported Alito or Roberts for SCOTUS. The notion that Specter would have had a conniption against the Republican party because Santorum did not support him if he still won his senate seat is nuts. Welcome to the spin room.

So for the sake of this argument, I will somewhat buy in, NOW: this brings up the entire foundation of the Santorum campaign up til now - which is he is the wind driven snow who stands up for principles and does not play these kinds of games.

Thanks for buying in, but I can't accept your premise. Rick, is a politician. None are the wind driven snow. They all play games. Politicians by necessity selectively stand for principles. Thomas Jefferson had a quote about how to figure out which ones to stand for and which ones to compromise. I'm sure someone here smarter than me will post the quote.