Skip to comments.Rick Santorum now TRASHES candidates he SUPPORTED in September
Posted on 12/07/2010 11:27:00 AM PST by Moseley
Will the real Rick Santorum please stand up?
BEFORE the November 2, election, Rick Santorum defended Christine ODonnell in her US Senate race in Delaware (though trying to have it both ways to some extent).
Now, AFTER the election, Rick Santroum is now trying to jump on the bandwagon and attack the GOPs losing candidates. Goal: NOT win elections, NOT learn how to win elections, but simply for personal aggrandizement by Rick Santorum.
On September 21, 2010, Rick Santorum defended Christine ODonnell as a candidate on Greta Van Sustrens On the Record Rick Santorum
Santorum famous for dumping Pat Toomey overboard in 2006 in favor of Arlen Specter was clearly trying to have it both ways in Greta Van Sustrens interview. But pressed by Greta, Rick Santorum was forced to line up behind Christine ODonnell shortly after Christine ODonnells September 14, 2010, primary victory.
RICK SANTORUM SAID ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2010:
o Santorum started to praise Christine ODonnells qualifications and abilities saying LOOK, IVE KNOWN CHRISTINE ODONNELL FOR YEARS (before Greta interrupted) clearly with a tone of praising Christines abilities and qualifications.
o Santorum said that Christines challenge in the US Senate race in Delaware was:
So, the question is whether Christine ODonnell in a very compressed window Sharon Angle had MONTHS, Christine ODonnell has WEEKS can she do the same thing [as Sharon Angle]?
o Santorum said that Sharon Angle had SEVERAL MONTHS in which to convince and win over voters.
o Santorum said that Christine faced a difficult challenge of a very compressed window and Christine ODonnell has WEEKS (only) to accomplish what other candidates had MONTHS to do in other States.
o Santorum said that Christines challenge in the election was Republicans not supporting the Republican nominee
o Santorum implicitly endorsed Christine ODonnell as qualified, while discussing Gretas question What does it mean to be qualified? Santorum explained Christine ODonnell is qualified if the voters believe she is qualified . it is up to the voters.
o Santorum said that Christine ODonnells challenge was that They are trying to discredit her.
And: If you look at what theyve done to Christine. They have put her outside of that. Theyve said no, shes a shes a, you know, shes a whacko. Shes someone who is out there on the extreme. Shes NOT. And people will find that out.
In response to those precise criticisms, Santorum said SHEs NOT. And people will find that out.
o Santorum said: If she is given the opportunity to do it, which she will be. Greta interrupts: She may. I think she will [turn it around]. And tonights interview from everything Ive heard [interrupted]
o So Rick Santorum predicted that Christine ODonnell would be able to turn it around and overcome the negative attacks against her, and Rick Santorum predicted that Christine ODonnell would turn it around.
Apparently there are two theories on elections in the Republican Party:
(a) Hard work, application of mental and physical effort the old fashioned way to win over supporters and do work
(b) DO NOTHING, sit back, and then fight over the credit for the winners and throw stones at the losers.
Choice (b) is dangerous because it FAILS to actually win elections. Republican elites are not interested in doing the hard work of rolling up their sleeves and running election campaigns. They simply want to posture for the maximum personal benefit.
Republican elites have abandoned the task of running successful election campaigns and instead are simply sitting back and throwing stones at their own candidates, and attacking those with the courage to go into the arena and fight for what we believe.
While this hypocrisy among Republicans is wrong and unfair to those who valiantly try to take power from liberals, it is also destructive to the Republican party because the elites are abandoning the efforts needed to actually win at the ballot box.
o Sharon Angle took on the Senate Majority leader the most powerful Democrat in the country besides the President. For any Republican to unseat the incumbent Senate Majority Leader was the longest of long shots. The fact that the tea party movement (even before Sharon Angles nomination) made Harry Reid unpopular and brought Sharon Angle close to winning is incredible.
o Christine ODonnell ran for US Senate in Delaware with 110,000 more Democrat than Republican registered voters. GOP elites in Delaware sat on their hands while the Democrat party increased Democrat voter registration by a stunning 11% from 2008 to 2010. While people note that Christine ODonnell has run before without success, Christine ODonnell took on JOE BIDEN in 2008 an almost impossible target.
In 2010, Christine ODonnell again sought to win the last 4 years of Joe Bidens 6 year terms won in 2008 in a special election on November 2, 2010. Joe Biden is the Vice President of the United States, and it was his seat in his home state that Christine ODonnell was seeking. Why did the IRS issue an erroneous tax lien, and then promptly admit they were wrong and withdraw it but damage done? Why did the national news media come down so hard on Delaware? Having the Vice President of the United States potentially embarrassed in his own home State had nothing to do with this?
Those willing to hunt the big game in blue states deserve our greatest honor and utmost respect. Those who aimed for the easy victories in Republican-leaning States are heros, too. But no one deserves greater honor and greater respect than Christine ODonnell and Sharon Angle who charged the beach at Normandy. While others picked off easy victories, Angle and ODonnell stormed the enemy at their strongest points and put pressure on the Democrats on their home turf.
Real Santorum? This tells all, imo:
“Santorum famous for dumping Pat Toomey overboard in 2006 in favor of Arlen Specter”
Gosh you guys. Maybe he is disappointed in the way she ran the campaign. He supported her when it counted and now thinks she either could have done better or ran a poor campaign. I don’t see why this is news or that he should be bashed after analyzing her loss and coming to this conclusion. We are VERY hard on folks who give opinions on certain people.
Yes. Rick Santorum was a good man, and reliably pro-life and pro-family. He was persuaded by Bush and Rove to support Arlen Specter, whom they insisted had a better chance to win than Pat Toomey.
I’m sorry he did that, because I think it lost him the next election, because his conservative base was angry with him. He did it at the urging of the party leaders, Bush and Rove. And he also said he did it out of loyalty because Specter had earlier supported him.
I blame Rove for that as much as anybody. Specter was predictably a disaster, and Rick lost the election for doing what he was asked to do by the party leadership.
Since the Tea Party revolt, people have been more willing to revolt against the party elite, but that was not the case back then.
Still, I don’t know what possible purpose Santorum can have for saying this stupid stuff now. I think he’s hoping one day to get his job back. But this ain’t the way to do it. Not now.
Maybe he is disappointed in the way she ran the campaign. He supported her when it counted and now thinks she either could have done better or ran a poor campaign.
As a Delaware resident, I can testify very well that she could have campaigned harder and more aggressively. Some criticism was certainly deserved. It wasn’t a forward and active enough campaign to really show that she meant to win.
AND lost ALL credibility at the time in doing so. Has he ever explained or apologized for that?
Of course, GW Bush also campaigned for Specter during that very same primary.
Rove trashed her before she even got out of the starting gates.
But Santorum was his best to sell very weak candidate, since she was the nominee.
But do we want a roster full of Christine O’Donnells? I don’t think so.
What else do you want from him?
Right you are! Nevada and Maryland are RAT states. While I respect both Angle and O’Donnell for their attempts, they were, at the end of the day unelectable for any number of reasons. During their campaigns (and I really watched Nevada because we have business interests there) I cringed on almost a daily basis when I read what came out of the mouths of these two. They were so wedded to their personal philosophies that they thought that every looney statement they made was a plus, when it was a minus for most of the voters. If you didn’t know anything about the election and showed up to listen to the candidates, you just had to get the feeling that both of these women were too nutty to be elected. It’s really too bad for all of us because despite these foibles, they would have been good legislators.
I like Santorum. He was a good Senator here. I am dumbfounded by his action the last few years. It seems he got a real shell shocked after the Toomey/Specter race in ‘04 and his loss to that loser Casey. He needs to get his act together.
He made a political mistake but he is still right on policy.
He also said in 2007 The only one I wouldnt support is McCain.
“They were so wedded to their personal philosophies that they thought that every looney statement they made was a plus, when it was a minus for most of the voters.”
Conservatives can win everywhere once they start acting like responsible adults and not like radio talk show hosts.
Never been a Santorum fan. Hope he doesn’t run for POTUS.
I don’t see how he will matter either way.
> AND lost ALL credibility at the time in doing so. Has he ever explained or apologized for that?
No and despite some (what I think) feigned support (he’s running for something?) for _certain_ tea party candidates, he still really is an anti-libertarian, anti-small gov., anti-truly free market. Like hinckley buzzard says - pro-life is about it.
“I am not a witch” was certainly a FUBAR campaign item.
> Still, I dont know what possible purpose Santorum can have for saying this stupid stuff now. I think hes hoping one day to get his job back. But this aint the way to do it. Not now.
Yours was possibly the best spin on where Santorum stands, but I’ll never forget his comments on libertarians even before the Toomey thing. He’s in the John Kasich traitor territory for me... Kasich got the first assault weapons ban passed for Clinton.
Santorum made his choice six years ago when he supported Arlen over Pat.
Arlen’s Democrat vote was the extra vote needed for Obama-Care to make cloture,IIRC.
I voted for Santorum in 2000 and thought he had solid conservative values, in 2006 I grudgingly voted for him again(I loathed Casey) but he strayed and now I’m done with him.
As far as I’m concerned he’s an arrogant opportunist who sucks up to the Rob Gleason-Brabender-Cox Republican establishment big government crowd.
We used to fly the same flight to DC for years, before he moved his family to DC.
He was a very sincere, honest, young congresscritter with real values.
Unfortunately, young Rick, the honest congresscritter, has lived too long in DC and has too much political dogshit on his shoes.
I think that the old saying, that laying down with dogs will earn you fleas, is too true.
I don't say he is corrupt, but he has certainly become more of a DC "Lifer" than a young man with principles.
Ricki Santorum is a wimpish Loser! Don’t ever consider him for a national office,EVER!
I believe those two... especially O'Donnell, kept the glare of media off Rand Paul, giving him some needed breathing room so he could steady his campaign against Conway. COD had better be on Rand's Christmas gift list.
So was the "I am you!" ad.
Who wrote her stuff?
We have to remember, though, it was 2006 -- a "wave" election -- that carried a lot of weight toward his loss. We lost a high number of GOPers that year. Plus.. Bob Casey disguised himself as a pro-life "moderate," giving PA voters an illusory alternative to Santorum.
True. But I remember a lot of Freepers back before that election were saying that they refused to vote for Rick. And I was saying that Bob Casey was not his father’s son when it came to abortion, that he was lying on several issues, so they should hold their noses and vote for Rick. But they didn’t.
He made a big mistake agreeing to endorse Specter. But his voting record was good as long as he was in the Senate.
YOu would have liked it better if he had said she had no chance of winning? No, he said exactly what people say when they are trying their best NOT to be fingered as someone who is hurting a candidate’s chances.
She was NOT a good candidate. She proved it. She may be a great person, but she has not been, and was not, and probably will never be, a good candidate for Deleware.
But she will enjoy playing with the almost $1 million she still has in the bank after her campaign ended.
If McCain turned against republicans in 4 years, and became a democrat, I doubt anybody here would hold it against Sarah Palin, so I don’t know why they don’t understand what you explained about Rick Santorum.
I don’t think he’s the best conservative in the world, but he seemed a good enough guy not to be dumped on by conservatives like he is.
Sharon Angle WAS electable, she simply made too many mistakes against a well-oiled democratic machine. Appealing to hispanic voters by telling them they look asian was probably just the last straw.
O’Donnell never had a chance, both because of her lack of any experience at all, and her inability to stand up to scrutiny, defend herself, and articulate a message. Which was wierd because she was a great speaker, she just didn’t speak the message.
When your first words to introduce yourself to the general election audience is “I am not a witch”, you have already lost the race. (I know, Nixon managed to come back after his “I am not a crook” speech, but that wasn’t a campaign advertisement, and it took a while).
But she never had a chance. She was 16 points down before she stepped out of the gate, and then she decided to hang around in the gate for 3 weeks, collecting millions and cementing “Senator Coons” in the voter’s minds.
stupid is as stupid does.
Santorum must want the RINO insider support.
“Gosh you guys. Maybe he is disappointed in the way she ran the campaign. He supported her when it counted and now thinks she either could have done better or ran a poor campaign. I dont see why this is news or that he should be bashed...”
I agree with you entirely. Personally I thought O’Donnell was an inadequate candidate who had no chance of winning, but once she won the nomination you shut up, be a good team player, and get behind her and support her like Santorum did, no matter what you think, not throw stones like Rove or Krauthammer.
We’d be better off with half a conservative than no conservative at all. Castle was a lock to win, and had a 54% rating from American Conservative Union. Coons is 0% conservative with 100% chance of beating O’Donnell; O’Donnell is a 100% conservative with 0% chance of beating Coons. Either way it works out to Zero.
O’Donnell should have run for mayor of something and built at least a minimal record of achievement, not going straight from Kindergarten to the Major Leagues. Then go after the Senate slot when Castle retired.
I don’t know who wrote her stuff. Worse yet, he/she got paid partially with money I sent to O’Donnell campaign :-(
Cheer up. Maybe O’Donnell’s advertising person does not have your money.
It was announced yesterday that she is still sitting on a million dollars of campaign donations.
Do you know if they are going to pursue charges against her or drop them since she lost?
Whether a candidate has won or lost will have nothing to do with whether charges are pursued.
Charges will not be pursued because they are totally frivolous and without any merit.
I don’t think she violated any laws. I think those stories were overblown opposition attacks. I just think she was a poor candidate. I don’t think she was a crook.
There are legal ways a candidate can live off campaign contributions — for example, she could announce a run for the other senate seat, and then pay herself a salary for the campaign, up to the amount she would make if she WON the election.
My GUESS is that she will use the money in support of other candidates. At least, that’s what she SHOULD do, and it is a legal way to use the money. She can also return the money if she wants.
Sorry, while I agree with your assertion that a party is responsible for defending candidates, in the end getting elected in the personal responsibility of the candidate.
And if we are going to have a tea party, and it is going to challenge the establishment, and push candidates that will oppose the establishment, we have to get candidates who can win election without much help from the establishment.
You can rail against the establishment all you want, and complain that they didn’t help us topple them out of power, but I believe it is absurd to expect entrenched political powers to help us decapitate them. We either play with them and get the best candidate they can support, or we rise up against them, in which case we need candidates that can make it with our help alone.
IN this specific case, there was nothing the delaware establishment could have done to save O’Donnell. They might have made the race closer, but it is absurd to think that even a perfect republican committee can rescue a fatally flawed candidate in a state that is 2/1 democrat.
If it was that easy, we’d never win elections.
Christine O’Donnell proved herself to be a fairly principled conservative on issues, and a failure as a candidate getting her message out and making it appeal to the voters of Delaware.
She had $6 million, and only got 5% more of the vote in this election (against a placeholder democrat candidate in a wildly republican year) than she did in 2008 against Joe Biden, in a year she had no money.
If she had lost by a few points, like Sharon Angle, I think you could argue that a full-court blitz of support, AND a quick endorsement by the other primary candidate, might have been enough to swing the election.
But this was a rout, it was always going to be a rout, and that is because the candidate was a poor choice.
It’s a pretty bizarre world where what is “wrong with politics” is people who see a candidate lose by 16 points, and after the loss point out that they were a lousy candidate.
I sent her money, even though I knew she couldn’t win. I would like to have had her win. I don’t think she would have been a bad senator, and she was mostly right on issues (I was always nervous with her love affair for Hillary Clinton though). But it was easy to see she had no chance of winning. General elections aren’t primaries, where the electorate is your base.
That is the lesson the tea party movement has learned in this election, and they are already working around the county to vet and pick better candidates to support.
I believe the evidence is very clear--if she didn't violate the laws, then there must be some odd explanation. She should share that explanation if she wants to concince anyone that what her filings show is in line with the law and FEC regs. But look how she has dealt with issues over and over--red herrings. She evades the question and if pinned down just denies things without giving any evidence why we should believe her.
Maybe I'm letting other information and her repeated dishonesty bias my look at this issue, but in any case, if she were a Dem, nobody here would give her a pass on things half as bad.
There are legal ways a candidate can live off campaign contributions [...]
Heaven forbid she actually goes out and gets (and keeps) a real job, gaining some experience that might help her be competent at something like dogcatcher.
A good start might be to get a job where she could pick up some tips on managing money, if she wants to have a job that affects the finances of all Americans.
But I think that CREW's accounting of her violations is wrong--I think they missed that she made a few minor paybacks on the rent/utilities issue, for example.
I am not a witch....great campaign strategy./s