Posted on 02/24/2012 4:10:10 AM PST by no dems
The two-faced, slime ball, backslidden Mormon, Mitt RINO-Rom had the audacity to take Rick Santorum to task Wednesday night for endorsing Arlen Specter. Yes, Rick Santorum endorsed Specter back in 1994, or whenever. Why? Because Rick had gotten an endorsement from Specter in the past. This is the same reason why my girl Sarah endorsed John McLame in his last Senate reelection campaign. It’s called feeling a sense of obligation to return the favor to people who helped put you where you are today. Sarah did it for John McLame and Rick did it for Specter. Now, can we put all this crap behind us? I despised RS for years for endorsing Specter. I was more “understanding” to Sarah for endorsing McLame. Let's move on.
Romney endorsed Toomey in 2010. But, of course, Spectre was running as a democRat in 2010, and at that point, Romney knew he had no other choice. He no longer needed Spectre for anything.
Calling Newt a “clown” because some RINOs in leadership didnt like him anymore ...The RINO’s did it to garner support from the “middle” Dems. And retain power.
McGruff, who was he running against? Do you remember?
John S. (Stinking) McCain...
Any questions?
I don’t like Romney, but John McCain is unfit to hold any public office, much less the presidency. And I suspect that if he had backed McCain, you’d be here heralding that too, saying he was a jerk to do it.
Excuse me, but Arlen Specter is not who put Sanctorum in the Senate; the voters of Pennsylvania did. What about his "sense of obligation" to them? And I could care less about Sarah's loyalty to McLain. She betrayed her followers AND herself in doing so. Anytime you have favors being given and returned between old chums, you have the rule of man, not the rule of law.
I guess Romney couldn’t attack him for his 2008 endorsement mistake, where Santorum endorsed Romney. ;-)
Which is precisely what the liberal media is after.
The Republicans were in the majority. They didn’t need moderate Dems. The Republicans held the majority from January 1995, to December 2006.
Well then, thanks for helping it. /s
Sarah Palin’s case is somewhat different as she was honor bound to endorse McCain once she accepted the VeeP “slot” on his “ticket.” Had she not done that the media would have immediately questioned why she would have accepted the VeeP nomination from someone she would not endorse.
I often wonder if Sarah ever wishes she had turned McCain down and not taken the Veep nomination. It is my belief that McCain and his campaign staff's micro management of Sarah did significant damage to her future political viability. In fact, given the nefarious actions of the GOP-E that we have seen in this election cycle; one could speculate that they might have deliberately “sandbagged” Sarah just to eliminate her chances for any future high political office. (Do not forget that previous to the 2008 election, Gov Palin had taken on and done great damage to the GOP establishment “insiders” in Alaska.)
IMO, all Palin had to say was this.
I joined McCain’s team in 2008 to moderate the ticket.
I cannot endorse the man for return to office based on his political views.
I cannot believe how many people think he did a favor for her. In fact, she did a massive favor for him. Without her he gets 30%, if he’s lucky.
She owed him nothing.
LLS
There is little hope of holding politicians, plain office functionaries, to philosophical purity when most can't even be held to their own party platform.
The Democrats have little concern that their candidate will bald-faced lie while running. They take for granted they will get most of what they want later. The galling issue is that many Republican office seekers once elected then go on to try to please and pander to the media instead of their own voters on the Republican side.
Bush ran on a number of hot-button issues, one of which was high federal involvement in secondary education. The proof he was no conservative was that he actaully advanced such legislation once elected. If he was a democrat endorsing something more conservative during a campaign, he would have just ignored it or paid small lip service to it later.
We are going to have to decide who we want in the general election. That is what we are voting for in the primary process by the time it is down to three.
Yep, today we call them the GOP-E and they are backing Romney.
Speaks volumes...
I share your frustration. I have to remind myself that the media crossed a boundary in the last election, and went from bias to outright advocacy. We cannot allowing ourselves to be played by the liberal media the way we got played in the last election. Defeating 0bama is the goal, and I need to make sure that's what I focus on.
...our party and candidates as well.
Minor correction: The endorsement in question was 2004.
____________________________________________________________
Yeah; I know. I was thinking ‘04 and typed ‘94. Thanks.
What this is devolving into, is another election where I’m sick of everyone in the race.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You and me both!!!
The winds change pretty quickly.
Tim Pawlenty has endorsed Michele Bachmann for reelection to congress.
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.