Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum
American Spectator ^ | 1.30.12 @ 12:06PM | By W. James Antle, III

Posted on 01/30/2012 5:42:45 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

Newt Gingrich has effectively called on Rick Santorum to drop out of the presidential race, yet the former Pennsylvania senator continues to poll in the double digits and shows no sign of quitting. Why are so many conservatives dissatisfied with a choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney? Michelle Malkin's Santorum endorsement is a good primer....

[Santorum] didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn't follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd - including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich - and he didn't have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now...

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates - clearly and forcefully - as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals...

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 2012endorsements; gingrich; malkin; malkin4romney; michellemalkin; romney; santorum; santorum2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last
To: wombtotomb

“I feel a bit alienated by both Santorum and Romney”

Why Santorum? He doesn’t ever delve into someone’s personal life. In fact, Laura Ingraham said he was the only one NOT to pile on Newt when the other candidates did, in a previous debate.


51 posted on 01/30/2012 10:32:40 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rfp1234

So let’s look at Rick while he was a senator:

“He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals...”


52 posted on 01/30/2012 10:37:36 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221; All
17 posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 8:11:56 PM by bwc2221: “Today's Gallup Poll indicates Santorum will do far better than Gingrich in the swing states:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx

That is an important point.

To win this November, we have to energize our base voters, deal with the reality that President Barack Obama’s race brings in a significant number of voters who don't typically vote, and bring a number of swing states into the Republican column that often vote Democrat.

Newt Gingrich energizes some of our base but seriously antagonizes other parts. He himself admits he has baggage.

The old “Reagan Democrats” — ethnic blue-collar whites, often Roman Catholic, who are willing to vote Republican based on social issues — are key to winning many of those swing states. That's a constituency that's virtually tailor-made for Rick Santorum to pick up.

I'm not saying Gingrich can't do it, but I am saying Santorum has a history of doing so for nearly all of his political career winning races in predominantly Democratic constituencies until his last election, in which he was defeated by a pro-life Democratic son of a pro-life Democratic governor who took the same model of Mitt Romney, i.e., act like the opposite party to get elected.

Given the wild swings that have happened so far in this election cycle, I don't want to assume, with only three states having yet voted, that Santorum can't win the nomination. I readily grant that right now it looks like Gingrich is our best chance of defeating Romney, but who would have said that a few months ago?

Time will tell.

53 posted on 01/30/2012 10:59:48 PM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

Polls this far out are MEANINGLESS! Bring in some tarot cards and that might be more valid as a prediction. Didn’t you notice how far the polls have swung in each primary state so far? Kerry was ahead of Bush for months and by 7 points 4 months before the election. How’d that work out for him? When the attention is on the candidates, Newt outperforms Santorum. That is the best evidence we have so far of which one will do better against Obama.


54 posted on 01/30/2012 11:21:30 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Romney in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Anyone know if Pat Buchanan has made an endorsement?

I've always liked Buchanan on a personal level.

Never voted for him, though, and I agree that a reasonable person might justly call him an anti-Semite.

55 posted on 01/31/2012 1:47:34 AM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sun

his supporters do. constantly.


56 posted on 01/31/2012 3:28:04 AM PST by wombtotomb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: bramps

Thats fine-at least you are engaged and God bless you for that. It wasn’t really advice, just an observation. I pointed it out so at least I couldn’t be accused of being a Catholic basher, since I believe the two most viable candidates for conservatives are Catholic... you do know that Rick Santorum is a Catholic, right?

From the tone of your post regarding my reverting to the Catholic faith, it wasn’t clear whether you disapproved of my journey back to the Church of my birth-and your candidate, or if you just don’t care for the opinions of Catholics in general-except Santorums.


57 posted on 01/31/2012 4:49:08 AM PST by wombtotomb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I am surprised that Ms. Malkin was able to overlook Mr. Santorum’s support for SOPA.


58 posted on 01/31/2012 5:27:42 AM PST by snowsislander (Gingrich 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb
Truth be told I'm not a big fan of the Catholic church (I know both Newt and Santorum are Catholics) but it really caught me, and certainly didn't boost my opinion, that you would accept Christ as a Baptist and then essentially turn your back on him. He's all you need. And that's not just my opinion, it's his also.
59 posted on 01/31/2012 7:54:10 AM PST by bramps (Hypocrites in High Places)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Rick Santorum is the best, most conservative guy in the race. If all Freepers would support this blessed strong guy we could cream Romney and body slam the little O boy. Newt had his chance. Santorum’s time has come. He’s proven he can fight Obama in the debates. He is not an amoral selfish cad. I’m surprised more FReepers don’t see that he is a perfect FR candidate. Trustworthy, good, conservative, sees the dangers of amnesty and Arabs. He’s our ideal candidate. Dear Gd, may he do well today. We’re gonna need him.


60 posted on 01/31/2012 8:01:21 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander; All
58 posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:27:42 AM by snowsislander “I am surprised that Ms. Malkin was able to overlook Mr. Santorum’s support for SOPA.”

I'm aware of the issue and it is a legitimate concern about Santorum. In Gingrich's favor, he understood the power of the internet and of information technology when most of his older colleagues in Congress were still having secretaries take dictation because they couldn't use a keyboard.

Bad policies on internet regulation can get fixed. Dead babies can't be, and moral issues are not minor issues.

Bottom line: I can vote for Santorum despite some bad positions. Every candidate has some things on which I don't agree; that's life. I can vote for Gingrich if I have to do so, despite my concerns about him. I really hope the Republican Party doesn't put me in the position of having to decide whether to vote for a flip-flopper like Romney who in the very recent past advocated women's “right” to kill babies.

Even if Romney's change of heart on abortion is genuine — and I am not at all sure it is, since it at least gives the appearance of being driven by polling numbers — we don't need a flip-flopper deciding who to put on the Supreme Court. The tenure of a Supreme Court justice is for life, the last time a justice will ever face a vote is the Senate confirmation hearing, and we don't need a flip-flopper putting Republicans on the bench who then flip-flop once they're on the bench.

61 posted on 01/31/2012 8:22:51 AM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: bramps

You thinking I turned my back on him by being Catholic lets me know all I need to. Thank you for your honest reply.


62 posted on 01/31/2012 8:34:56 AM PST by wombtotomb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Yeah, I really don’t understand how so many people here are acting like establishment Republicans and demanding we support one of the two “electable” candidates.

I think some of it might have to do with the fact that so many Freepers deluded themselves into thinking Palin would jump in that they didn’t want to commit to Santorum earlier. Now they see it as too late so they’re clinging to Newt on the premise that he can beat Romney.

If only they’d jumped in for Santorum earlier we might not have to settle.


63 posted on 01/31/2012 10:33:49 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Good post. I think that Santorum would be the freeper candidate without all the asterics needed for Gingrich if Gingrich hadn’t had some great hits at our enemy the media at the debates. But Santorum last week showed that he is dang good at hitting his opponents in debates and could indeed bring it to Obama.

The coalesce thing really only works if the one you are coalescing around isn’t a morally weak narcissist who is unfit for leadership.


64 posted on 01/31/2012 11:15:04 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

Ok, people! Santorum does not support SOPA!!!

He just questions the “freedom” of the Internet as it is controlled by an oligarchy!!!

Here is an example: google the poor man’s name. How would you like it if when your children googled your name, the first thing that always pops up is a definition of their name meaning the foul liquid that emerges from gay anal sex?? Because Santorum is against gay marriage. Obviously fully supported or promoted by the king of the Internet, google.

He is against the SOPA laws but is interested in who really controls what people see there. It’s a discussion that is fair to have happen.


65 posted on 01/31/2012 11:23:17 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

I don’t think Santorum is boring but I would frankly prefer a boring president to one you can’t trust not to do or react a crazy way every Monday morning.


66 posted on 01/31/2012 11:26:55 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

In a perfect world Newt would be back in the White House...as Santorum’s press secretary.


67 posted on 01/31/2012 12:19:53 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

I’d rather have someone brilliant and inspiring, even if occasionally too blunt, than a dullard like Santorum. Now is not the time for a do-nothing dullard like Santorum.


68 posted on 02/01/2012 1:43:08 AM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

>> But I doubt he can win against nobama.

Ross Santorum will deliver Romney.


69 posted on 02/01/2012 1:59:38 AM PST by Gene Eric (C'mon, Virginia -- are you with us or against us?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JediJones; All
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:21:30 AM · 54 JediJones to darrellmaurina: “Polls this far out are MEANINGLESS! Bring in some tarot cards and that might be more valid as a prediction. Didn’t you notice how far the polls have swung in each primary state so far? Kerry was ahead of Bush for months and by 7 points 4 months before the election. How’d that work out for him? When the attention is on the candidates, Newt outperforms Santorum. That is the best evidence we have so far of which one will do better against Obama.”

I agree that polling has limits. And on a national basis, I do agree with you that national polls are close to irrelevant — I'm a lot more interested in how candidates perform in key states.

We need a Republican candidate who can win traditionally Democratic industrial states. I'm not saying Gingrich can't do that, but for the same reason we needed a Republican who could win the South a generation ago, today we need a Republican who can win the old “Reagan Democrat” coalition.

70 posted on 02/01/2012 8:16:35 AM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: bramps; wombtotomb

Why do you say he turned his back on Christ? He was baptised in the name of Christ, following Christ’s own words not some loonie toon Eddie Long option.


71 posted on 02/06/2012 1:31:01 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson