Romney-Santorum 2008

National Review Online ^ | February 4, 2008 | Mark Hemingway

[rightwingintelligentsia]

If the general public associates a face with the word “conservative,” it could very well be that of former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. He’s been a vocal opponent of his former colleague John McCain during this primary season, but he had hesitated to go one step further. That changed Friday, when he endorsed Mitt Romney during an appearance on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. In a subsequent interview with National Review Online, he explained his decision.

“Campaigns can change who you are, particularly politically. Just thinking and living and breathing why I want to be president and what I stand for and why I stand for it . . . I always say about 20 years of political life experiences get compacted into a year. So people can change,” Santorum said. “That’s what I was waiting to see — whether any of these candidates could do that and take what I refer to as lumps of coal and under this pressure cooker that is a presidential campaign, you know, produce a diamond. I really believe Romney has gone through that process.”

[moderate_conservative]

Too late.

[rep-always]

It is never too late.

[airborne]

Says you.

[rhombus]

Too late.

I think you are probably correct. In our guts we all know McCain is nuts. Apparently we'll have to go to war with the nut we have. Maybe he can win the general with mostly Democrats and Independents too as I don't expect Republicans will turn out for him with much "gusto".

[G Larry]

No, idiological compatibility isn’t the key.
2 Nor’Easters isn’t a winning combo.

Mitt needs somebody from the South....WHO IS POPULAR!

[peyton randolph]

If the general public associates a face with the word “conservative,” it could very well be that of former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.

---

Maybe the public does. I don't. ... not after Santorum supported RINO Specter at the expense of Toomey.

[larryjohnson]

Rick lost reelection

[PennsylvaniaMom]

I doubt it will be Santorum. On alot of local media coverage (since his loss to Casey, Lite) he has proclaimed how much he likes being home w/his family. He does the commentating gig and also works in one of the 'think tanks' in DC. So he now has alot of 'dad' time.

[chicagolady]

Romney/Tancredo!!

[moderate_conservative]

Exactly, no Republican nominee will get PA in 2008.

[Yosemitest]

"Moderate" is the key here, and it's unacceptable.

You would have this piece of garbage "McCain" run the party?

We need a song based on "Next Time ... He'll Think Before He Cheats" by Carrie Underwood , " about McCain.

Ann Coulter on McCain and Conservatives
Friday, February 01, 2008

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," January 31, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. [ 5 minutes 32 seconds ]

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And Senator John McCain is gaining momentum, but not all conservatives are jumping for joy.
Senator McCain is a polarizing candidate for many. And critics point to his stance on immigration, his work with Russ Feingold.
But with a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy on the Democratic side of the aisle, will true conservatives eventually fall in line and support the Arizona senator?

Joining us now, author of the "New York Times" best seller, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd be Republicans," our friend Ann Coulter.
How are you?

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "IF DEMOCRATS HAD ANY BRAINS": Fine, thank you.

HANNITY: Your thoughts about -
Look I'm standing on substance here.

COULTER: Yes.

HANNITY: It's immigration.
It's limits on free speech.
It's not supporting tax cuts.

COULTER: It's Anwar. It's torture at Guantanamo.

HANNITY: Class warfare rhetoric. It's interrogations. It's Guantanamo. It's Anwar.
These are not small issues to conservatives.

COULTER: No, and if you're looking at substance rather than whether it's an R or D after his name, manifestly,
if he's our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl, Sean,
because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism.
I absolutely believe that.

HANNITY: That's the one area I disagree with you.

COULTER: No, yes, we're going to sign up together. Let me explain that point on terrorism.

HANNITY: You'd vote for Hillary —

COULTER: Yes. I will campaign for her if it's McCain.

HANNITY: If Hillary is watching tonight, you just got an endorsement —

COLMES: I just heard the word no.

COULTER: I was touched when she cried.
That part isn't true.
But the rest of it is true.
He has led the fight against
— well, as you say, interrogations. I say torture at Guantanamo.
She hasn't done that. She hasn't taken a position in front.

HANNITY: Without interrupting you, let me give you one distinction
— that's what liberals do to you. Let me give you one distinction, he did support the war —

COULTER: So did Hillary.

HANNITY: But he stayed with it. He supported the surge.
I didn't like his criticisms of Rumsfeld, but he was right —

COULTER: OK, let's get to him supporting the surge.
He keeps going on and on about how he was the only Republican who supported the surge and other Republicans attacked him.
It was so awful how he was attacked. It was worse than being held in a tiger cage.

Okay, well I looked up the record.
Republicans all supported the surge. He's not only not the only one who supported the surge,
I promise you no Republican attacked him for this. And you know why he's saying that, Sean,
because he keeps saying it at every debate, I'm the only one. I was attacked by Republicans.
He's confusing Republicans with his liberal friends.
They're the ones who attacked him for it, his real friends.

HANNITY: Hillary Clinton, if she gets her way, will nationalize health care.
She's going to pull the troops out of Iraq.

COULTER: I don't think she will.

HANNITY: That's what she's saying she's going to do.

COULTER: Compared to John McCain, she will do better.

HANNITY: She says in a hundred days she's immediately going to begin to pull out.

(CROSS TALK)

COULTER: Look, she's running in a Democratic primary. He's running in the Republican primary, and their positions are about that far apart.
When George Bush said at the State of the Union Address that the surge is working in Iraq,
Obama sat on his hands,
Kennedy sat on his hands,
Hillary leapt up and applauded that we are winning in the surge and that the surge is working in Iraq.

She gave much better answers in those debates when Democrats like Obama and Biden were saying what do we do? What do we do if three cities are attacked. She said, I will find who did it and I will go after them.

HANNITY: You want to sit back.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Can I just say something — Ann -

Coulter: I would trust any republican - any republican - but John McCain - more than Hillary Clinton

.HANNITY:)Hey, you want to sit back -

COULTER: - Because with John McCain - Hillary is absolutely more conservative.
Moreover -

(CROSS TALK)

COLMES: My work is done. My work is done.

COULTER: Moreover, she lies less than John McCain.
I'm a Hillary girl now.
She lies less than John McCain.
She's smarter than John McCain,
so that when she's caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they've been caught lying.
McCain is so stupid, he doesn't even know he's been caught.

COLMES: Go.
In fact, could you fill in for me next week?

COULTER: If it's McCain, I will.

COLMES: Let me get this straight, would you vote for Hillary Clinton?

COULTER: Yes.

COLMES: You would actually go in a voting booth —

COULTER: If it's close and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism,
which he definitely is. He is bad for for the country —
He is very very bad for the country.

(CROSS TALK)

COLMES: Can I tell you the last thing that Hillary Clinton wants? Ann Coulter's endorsement.

COULTER: He will not give up on amnesty.
He will not give up on amnesty. Now -
Even now he's running as a Republican, he won't give up on amnesty. I'm at that debate the other night, he's coming in attacking profits, capitalism -

(CROSS TALK)

COULTER: I'm serious.

COLMES: I know, but let me get serious for a second, because so far I haven't been.
Look, are you telling me —
look at all the people endorsing McCain.
I'm not talking about Johnny come lately Republicans.
Nancy Reagan is wrong?
Rick Perry is wrong?
Arnold is wrong?
Charlie Crist is wrong?

COULTER: Okay, other than Nancy Reagan —

(CROSS TALK)

COULTER: No. I will explain. It's not that they're wrong other than Nancy Reagan. And by the way
we loved Nancy Reagan for loving Ron Reagan. We didn't love her for her political positions.
Who wants embryonic stem-cell research? And I'm moving Nancy reagan to the -

(CROSS TALK)

COLMES: Hello. Hello. Are all of these people are off the beat.

COULTER: I'm trying to answer the question. Stop talking.
I'm moving Nancy Reagan to the side, and I'm saying all the rest of these political endorsements mean one thing;
they think he's the front runner. They want a job in his administration.
Nothing means less than an endorsement from someone who wants a position.

COLMES: They're all hoes just looking for a job?

COULTER: No,
but they all do want jobs.

COLMES: I'm giving her the opportunity —

COULTER: They do all want jobs. What they want -
It's good to be friends with the king.
Some people - like me -

HANNITY: Will you be careful.

COULTER: Some people don't care about being the king.

Read Mark Levin

"Reagan Challenged His Party from the Right. McCain Challenges His Party from the Left. [Mark R. Levin]"

I don't think most conservatives are interested in McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in. There have been a few posts here mentioning it.
And I appreciate all the references to Reagan's efforts to advance his agenda, which did involve making compromises with a Democrat House and, throughout most of his presidency, a Democrat Congress.
And if John McCain showed this kind of temperament and vision in his political career, I don't think most who object to his candidacy during the primaries would be objecting to it today. I think we would be enthusiastically supporting him.

Painting Reagan as a tax-and-spend Republican, who basically went along with Washington and appointed a bunch of moderates to the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to build up McCain's conservative and leadership credentials and mollify his critics, has the opposite effect mostly because it is inaccurate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's supporters using Thomas Jefferson's alleged adultery to explain the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Reagan challenged his party from the Right. He sought the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon and lost. He sought the nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 and lost. He fought the Republican establishment in 1980 as well, including Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush, and won.
McCain has challenged his party from the Left. I don't know how many more times I and others have to lay out his record to prove the point.
To put a fine point on it, when he had to, Reagan sought compromise from a different set of beliefs and principles than McCain. It does a great disservice to historical accuracy and the current debate to continue to urge otherwise.

Let me be more specific, rather than spar in generalities. Reagan would never have used the phrase "manage for profit" as a zinger to put down a Republican opponent. Reagan believed in managing for profit because he believed in free enterprise. That doesn't mean he didn't agree to certain tax increases (after fighting for and winning the most massive tax cuts in modern American history), which were incidentally to be accompanied by even greater spending cuts.
McCain believes the oil companies are evil, and said it during one of the debates.
Among his first acts as president, Reagan decontrolled the prices of natural gas and crude oil with the stroke of his pen because, as he understood, profit funds research and exploration. Reagan had a respect for and comprehension of private property rights and markets that McCain does not. There never would have been a Reagan-Lieberman bill, in which the federal government's power over the private sector would have trumped the New Deal.

Reagan opposed limits on political speech.
The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and the media ownership rules, which helped create the alternative media that McCain despises. Reagan's reverence for the Constitution would never have allowed him to support, let alone add his name to, something like McCain-Feingold.

As for Reagan's Supreme Court appointments, it is wholly misleading to simply list those who turned out to be disappointing as evidence of Reagan's willingness to compromise on judicial appointments or appoint moderates, or whatever the point was.
In Sandra Day O'Connor's case, he was assured by Barry Goldwater and Ken Starr that she was an originalist. While on the Court, she started out on fairly sound footing, and then lurched toward the Left, something Reagan could not foresee or control.
Yes, Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court, but only after:

1. first nominating Bob Bork;
2. then nominating Doug Ginsburg;
and 3. again receiving assurances that Kennedy was solid.
And, again, Kennedy started out as a fairly reliable originalist, but has "evolved" over the years in ways that no president can prevent.
But Reagan also appointed Antonin Scalia and promoted William Rehnquist to chief justice, and he appointed scores of outstanding judges at the district court and appellate levels — the significance of which attorneys like me, who study this issue, fully comprehend and appreciate. (As an aside, as I spent some time at the White House working on judicial selection, Reagan refused to allow the Senate to dictate which judges he would ultimately nominate to the circuit courts.)

Reagan sought to abolish all kinds of federal programs and agencies — from the Department of Education to the Action Agency/VISTA — and the list goes on and on.
I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for someone with the time and inclination, such as a think-tank scholar, to go back and examine the early budgets that Reagan sent to Congress. Am I the only one who remembers all the horror stories in the media portraying Reagan's budgets

as setting back the New Deal and Great Society,
creating armies of homeless,
cutting ketchup from the Food Stamp program, and so forth?
But Reagan couldn't get a lot of the cuts he wanted past congressional Democrats. However, he did shutdown the government several times to try to limit spending. Does anyone remember the media stories about Social Security recipients going without checks?

The one area Reagan drastically increased spending was defense.
And while McCain is said to be among the most capable of hawks, he used little of his political capital and media savvy to oppose the Clinton cuts — or to warn the nation about the rising threat from al-Qaeda, for that matter. He did not call for the resignation of his good friend Bill Cohen, who was a terrible defense secretary. McCain was not alone, of course. But a more fulsome examination of McCain's senatorial record relating to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement is met mostly with silence or admonitions to avert our eyes.

Reagan would not have led efforts to grant the enemy constitutional and international rights, as McCain has. I believe he would have sided with President Bush. After all, as president, Reagan rejected efforts to expand the Geneva Conventions to cover terrorists.
This is a key area of departure for McCain not only from Bush but most national security advocates. But, alas, we must avert our eyes, again.

As for the 1986 Reagan amnesty for illegal aliens, we've been down this road time and again.
The bill was carefully reviewed within the Reagan administration, including at the Justice Department (at the time, the INS reported to the attorney general). Reagan agreed that amnesty would be conferred on 2-3 million illegal aliens as a one-time event in exchange for adequate funding for border security. The bill passed in 1987. The border security part of the deal was never enforced.
To say that Reagan supported amnesty and no more is to rewrite history. There would have been no Reagan-Kennedy bill, written largely by LULAC and LaRaza.

But we must rewrite history
if we are to make the case that McCain is no different from Reagan,
Reagan is no different from his predecessors,
and Reagan's speeches weren't all that revolutionary.
And if we object to such characterizations, then the argument shifts to Reagan wasn't perfect,
the Reagan era is dead,
these are different times, etc. Then, if we criticize McCain's record we are told

the tone is troubling,
we're going to help elect Hillary Clinton if we don't unite behind McCain now (at the beginning of the primaries, no less!),
the surge is the only issue that matters, etc.

Look, I do not believe that McCain is a principled conservative.
I believe he is a populist hawk in the tradition of a Scoop Jackson. This isn't a perfect comparison, of course, but nothing is ever perfect, is it?
In my view, this is why the hawks will support McCain regardless of his record in virtually every other respect. Moreover, they see McCain as the only Republican who has the will or ability or whatever to fight terrorism. I don't.
But please, can we at least agree, on National Review's website of all places, to stop dumbing down or dismissing the Reagan record. If you are going to use it, at least be accurate about it. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to the backhand it received earlier.

02/02 12:52 PM

Mark Levin isn't called the GREAT ONE for no reason.

So I ask again. Do you really want McCain?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

You don’t run someone who was just trounced in his own state.

[1curiousmind]

“Mitt needs somebody from the South....WHO IS POPULAR!”

_____________

Who would you suggest? I’ve been thinkin’ Thompson for some time. But that’s not looking likely. Apparently (according to CNN over the weekend) Fred will endorse McCain after super Tuesday.

[xsmommy]

So I ask again. Do you really want McCain?

Nope!

[littlehouse36]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)?

[Harvey105]

“...I always say about 20 years of political life experiences get compacted into a year. So people can change,” Santorum said.”

A fancy way of explaining election year conversions. Convenient, but late and not to be trusted.

And if Santorum was comfortable endorsing liberal Arlen Specter, why wouldn’t he be just as comfortable with Romney? After all, all he wants to do is get back on the government teat. He’s tired of his 6 part time jobs. He much prefers the comfort of government work and being ‘in charge’ and in line for the top spot.

It won’t work. Pa conservatives are already wise to him. He was trounced before and he will be again in November.

[G Larry]

Good Choice if we’re assured of a conservative replacement for him in the Senate!

[G Larry]

Hmmm....

“Mitt, DeMint” ticket?

Lot’s of marketing potential!

[Disturbin]

bingo!

[moderate_conservative]

McCain/Huckabee 08

[littlehouse36]

Great post; I had not seen Ann Coulter on H&C. Thanks.

[avital2]

someone on another thread yesterday suggested Haley Barbour, Gov of Mississippi. a good thought - popular, sharp and a guy who succeeded after Katrina.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Rick lost reelection

Yeah, I know. Now we have Snarlin' Arlen and a guy who needs a faxed map from the DNC to find the Capitol building every morning.

Thanks, pure, 100% conservatives.

[trisham]

No doubt Romney already has someone in mind. It’s probably unlikely to be Santorum.

[littlehouse36]

“McCain/Huckabee 08 “

They are too likeminded (anti-capitalist.) If McCain is the nominee, I would personally prefer McCain/Giuliani.

[dmw]

If I ever voted for a ticket with that slimy, flip-flopping liberal on it, this is the way the ticket would have to read:

J.C. Watts-Romney

Wonder if the Mormons would have a problem with that one????

[taildragger]

H105,

I do not have the data in front of me, but one lobby in particular wanted to see Santorum fall, One that is not pro family.

With that as a background, did they have a bigger influence in PA voters?

2nd thought, was Santorum "Quayled"? Yes a new verb, i.e. a good and promising conservative nipped in the bud, and once tainted, has no viability. I have heard Rick on Beck in some of his extended discussions on the war on terror. What a shame this guy is out of the loop and may be for ever, IMHO.

[Harvey105]

NO!

Thank 50/50 conservative Santorum. He wasn’t the conservative that his PR machine made him out to be. LOOK at his voting record.

People got wise to him when he placed Party above principle and endorsed Specter. Even pro life / pro gun democrats withheld their votes for him after that (mis)calculated move.

Put the blame where it belongs, not on the voters who caught on to his game.

[Harvey105]

He was not defeated by the left. He defeated himself because he abandoned his conservative base.

His ‘pro gun’ record wasn’t. He voted against gun owners one in every three votes.

His ‘pro life’ record really wasn’t. How else could he back a liberal pro abort like Specter?

He wasn’t a fiscal conservative — he brags about that.

He wasn’t for small government. He liked to call himself a big government conservative. Now what is the hell is that but a self styled authoritarian who wants to tell you how to live your life?

He modified ‘conservative’ to the point that you couldn’t recognize it. That’s why he lost.

[diverteach]

Outside of it being a “good looking” ticket, I’d rather see Fred running with Mitt. Mitt’s speech about Fred when he through in the towel seemed to me to open that door.

[Wallace T.]

Santorum lost his 2006 Senate re-election bid by 17 points. While the Democrat margin has not been wide, they have carried Pennsylvania for four straight elections. If he gets the nomination, Romney puts Michigan, New Hampshire, and Maine into play for the Republicans. However, he will need a popular Southerner who is an evangelical Protestant to balance the ticket. Certain Southern and border states, notably West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri, will be competitive this year and, like it or not, a considerable portion of the GOP voter base is suspicious of Mormons.

That needed Southern evangelical is not Mike Huckabee. If the Romney “surge” works tomorrow, and the fight is carried into Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the other remaining states, Huckabee will regret his role as a de facto ally of McCain.

[cowdog77]

Santorum, Hunter and Coulter....all endorsing Romney.
If only he wasn’t so soft on abortion.

[gruna]

Ann also said she not only would vote for Hillary over McCain, she would campaign for Hillary over McCain if he somehow gets the nomination. She obviously detests McCain as much as I do.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Can you tell me when PA has EVER had a 100% conservative senator according to your definition? You live in PA and should know that every politician has to kiss the rear ends of the large “seasoned citizen” and mob-mentality union contingents to carry Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. I know the vast middle is largely conservative, but population-wise they don’t count for squat, unfortunately.

So Pat Toomey had a chance to be the first, ever. And while I voted for Toomey in the primaries and couldn’t even bring myself to pull the lever for Specter later on, we’re kidding ourselves if we think that Toomey had a chance in the general.

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

I would personally prefer McCain/Giuliani.

So does Rudy.

[CommerceComet]

He wasn’t the conservative that his PR machine made him out to be.

So Romney and Santorium can form the pseudo-conservative ticket. If that is true of Santorium, it is 100x more true of Mitt.

At least Santorium, didn't openly renounce the Reagan Revolution. Please, wake up, if you are voting for Romney as a "conservative" savior. You are buying a bill of goods.

[seekthetruth]

Great Post! Heard J.D. Hayworth endorse Mitt Romney this morning on FOX! GO MITT!

[taildragger]

H105,

Thanks for the PA perspective.....

[CharlesWayneCT]

Maybe the public does. I don't. ... not after Santorum supported RINO Specter at the expense of Toomey.

A shining example of why John McCain could well be our nominee. The Moderates are a very forgiving bunch. Meanwhile, every time a conservative makes one mistake, he is kicked out of the club. Too many conservatives save their vitriol for their own.

[peyton randolph]

Meanwhile, every time a conservative makes one mistake, he is kicked out of the club.

---

A 'mistake' implies something that is accidental. In this instance, Santorum intentionally rejected the conservative Toomey to support the RINO Specter.

Not a mistake. A full-fledged middle finger to conservatism.

Too bad many conservatives assume that political opportunists actually hold conservative beliefs.

[libstripper]

FTA:

“On the other hand, I served with George H. W. Bush, a guy who lost his way as president and decided that when you had to make a deal, you went over and made a deal with the Democrats, you didn’t make a deal with Republicans and Democrats and that’s my great fear. . . . That’s worse in many respects on those issues than having a Democrat because you then undermine Republican opposition to the things that the Democrats want to do. And it makes it much more likely for those things to happen.”

In a nutshell, that's why I WILL NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN IN ANY ELECTION.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

You are also giving the ‘seasoned citizen’ voting block credit for thinking/knowing who they were voting for. Bob Casey, Jr. was just about invisible during that campaign (if memory serves me). Ever hear Bobby C. ‘speak?’ Not the orator his charismatic father was...and I trully believe many of AARPsters thought they were voting for the late Gov. Casey.

[Charles Henrickson]

Santorum was here in St. Louis yesterday for the Romney rally, and I got a chance to talk with him. See my report on that, after the news article:

Missouri finds a place in the political sun (Report on Romney visit to St. Louis)

[Harvey105]

Pa is a democrat state, but a very conservative one at the same time. Pat’s home district was heavily democratic but he won by large margins but articulating sound conservative, small government principle.

I firmly believe that he would have beaten any democrat with the same message statewide. Why do you think that the dems had to put up a (who said that he was) pro life / pro gun Casey Jr
to run against Santorum. They knew that a liberal message would not win the race for them.

Many reps in Pa are conservative — even the dems. When (like Reagan) they run on a conservative message — and live up to it in office — they win. When they run or govern as moderates or liberals, they lose. Witness Santorum and Hart.

[Harvey105]

I won’t vote for Romney or McCain. I never considered Rudy. I only briefly considered Huck based on his CPAC speech last year, but he also fell from favor quickly.

Dr Paul is the only one who realizes (or cares about) the threat that our own federal government poses to our liberty. Despite some policy differences, Paul is the only one who has been consistent for over 20 years.

[Harvey105]

You’re welcome.

[icwhatudo]

Regardless of who you support, make sure to vote in the new FR poll:

"Which GOP presidential hopeful do you want to see win the most delegates on Super Tuesday?"

Member Opinion
Mitt Romney	75.9%		1,390
Ron Paul	11.5%		211
Mike Huckabee	7.6%		139
John McCain	5.0%		92
	100.0%		1,832

[Harvey105]

“Rick Santorum is a trusted and respected social conservative leader, and this conversation helped to reassure me on these questions.”

Santorum gives a great ‘red meat’ speech that will fire up conservatives. I only wish that Santorum the campaigner and Santorum the Senator were one and the same person, but they are not.

Besides, he lost by 17 points in his last race — hardly the stuff that proves trust and respect. He is despised by liberals and no longer trusted by Pa conservatives. His votes came mostly from moderate (Party over principle) republicans and some conservatives who thought that they voted for the lesser evil.

[rogue yam]

Troll alert!

m_c has been posting anti-conservative garbage since signing up just a couple of days ago.