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 ...
Santorum’s in big ol trouble
Specter is a devil.
I keep seeing documented evidence that Santorum is just another politician, and not the Messiah that his supporters think he is... whoever brings the news, Romney supporters or otherwise... Santorum has commenced digging his hole...
I don’t know about that, but if true, it means that Santorum endorsed “a devil” in 1996 to return a political favor. Not exactly the principled conservatism Santorum keeps saying he is all about...
Santorum was effectively returning a favor by endorsing Specter despite his aggressive pro-abortion-rights views. Specter had supported Santorum’s 1994 Senate campaign.
*******************
Santorum didn’t become pro-life until 88? 89? I believe he said. I guess he didn’t become strongly pro-life until even later?
Yep, Big Ol' Trouble. And he's commenced digging his big ol' hole.
I think you could be moderately pro-life and have difficulty supporting a candidate, like Specter, who "believed that anti-abortion activists were a “fringe” group hijacking the Republican party."
Now this big family guy did NOT give a rat's behind to set the example to the American public what was and was NOT acceptable in an American president.... Guess he was a ‘Scottish law’ tenant, whatever that really means.
NO I do not like Santorum and have NOT since he Spectored US into a cheap imitation impeachment proceeding. I do not trust him to know right from wrong.
Appearances being what they are, it seems politics and party are what is most important to Santorum.
Having said all that above, his supporters are doing the same thing barack's voters did in 2008, seeing Santorum as a Messiah... and the reality is, he isn't...
Yeah. I would say that Newt would make more of a real difference than Santorum would.
Priority #1 remains nominating someone who isn’t Romney.
"...in “Crisis” magazine, Santorum defended and explained his support for Specter as the “right” decision."
"Santorum says he supported Specter “because it will further the causes in which I believe and because it’s in the best interest of my state.” He says Specter has a better chance of beating his Democrat opponent whereas Toomey “would have had a much tougher race.” He says President Bush agreed that Specter was a stronger candidate."
"Santorum says that as a “Republican leader” he has a responsibility to support incumbent senators generally, and Specter specifically. Reelecting Specter, he says, improves the chances of the GOP keeping control of the Senate." Santorum also says that “clearly a pro-life Republican majority that includes Senator Specter” is better than Specter’s totally pro-choice Democrat opponent. Santorum includes Specter in the Senate’s “pro-life” GOP majority...And he says this because Specter --- who Santorum also refers to as “pro-choice” --- voted for a ban on partial-birth abortion and fetal-homicide bills."
"Santorum helping the Republican “team” .."
Oh yes they are. I have even see some prophecy that Santorum was picked by God Himself. Course I have not yet seen that Chapter and verse... Guess it comes from some deep dark secret place requiring a 'faith' that it is a truth.
God even forewarned through Isaiah 3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
And?
Make the case fer yer guy
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...
Just wanted to point out, for those who did not know, that the “defense” in that comment was from back when he did the endorsement, not recent.
It was a joke. I remember him endorsing DeDe.
On the other hand, so far as I can ascertain, he endorsed NOBODY in the critical 2008 presidential election, where there were several conservative candidates who might have benefited from an endorsement by the bearer of the Ronald Reagan Torch.
I have been saying these debates are self destructive since the third one. They are like firemen squirting water on other firmen instead of on the fire. And they get tiresome.
I will support anyone who gets the nod{Including Mitt. After voting for McCain a person can do any distastful thing}.
The idea ticket would be Newt/Rick. they would balance out just right.But I am afraid both their egos would never allow it.
Actually, I’m not a Santorum supporter. I do defend him against attacks I think are silly. And I don’t hate Newt — I almost threw my support to him, in the day after Perry was thrown off the Virginia ballot, but before Gingrich was.
My primary argument against Gingrich is that I don’t think he could win an election. My secondary argument is that he’s not as conservative as his strong supporters have convinced themselves recently, nor does he compare as favorably to Santorum as they try.
If everybody here supported Santorum, and everybody was attacking Gingrich non-stop, I’d probably be doing a lot more defending of Gingrich. I think there’s probably even a post somewhere in this site where I defended Gingrich at the time he endorsed Dede — because at that time virtually ever freeper was denouncing him as a RINO establishment hack.
I’m very consistant on the position of attacking candidates for prior endorsements. I defended Palin many times against attacks for her endorsements as well, both McCain and her california endorsement against the most conservative primary candidates there.
Well, if I ever attain office{but since there are pictures of me in a German WW2 uniform and I said the “N” word more than a few times. Not to mention more than a few times I got drunk and told very off-color but very funny jokes}My chances of ever being elected to office on the GOP ticket is very slim.
But rest assured if I ever do get elected, I will support fellow Republicans. No matter how smelly or snake like they are.
I was never a closet Romney supporter. In the last election, I was open about all the people I supported, and that included Romney. Eventually he was the only one left I supported, as I was never a supporter of McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee (although I’m sure I defended McCain against attacks I thought were unsupported).
As for this election, I still haven’t picked a candidate, but I’ve in turn defended Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum. I never liked Cain as a presidential pick, and Gingrich wasn’t on my list, but that was mostly because I decided to start with candidates who could get at least a little support here at FR, and back when this started Gingrich was NOT one of those candidates.
Another OLD pro-Romney article from NR that was already posted previously here and discussed at length.
But it was apparently time for another late-night dump of anti-Santorum articles, and since they don’t have a slew of new polling data yet, we have to expect some recycling.
A snake is a snake is a snake!!!!! AND if a Republican is a snake then I will be required to stand on my convictions of principles rather than slither down into their pit.
The Jon Stewart media is a guide in how the powers that be both parties, treat any particular Republican after elections.... Old Lord McCain, who demanded US to give power over to the Jon Stewart media to pick US candidates. He sure expected them to give to him in return. They mocked and jeered and sneered at him by ridiculing Sarah Palin into a hoped for personal bankruptcy and political oblivion.
Look where all this holding our noses and accepting smelly snakes got US. Obamination!!!!!
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.