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

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum lashes out at New York Times reporter
politco ^ | 3-25-12 | By JUANA SUMMERS

Posted on 03/26/2012 6:26:21 AM PDT by Mozilla

FRANKSVILLE, Wis. — On the eve of the U.S. Supreme Court’s debate over the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care law, Rick Santorum declared that Mitt Romney’s support for a similar law in Massachusetts made him “the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama.”

But when pressed by reporters about the sharp statement, Santorum grew agitated, saying that his comments regarding Romney were confined to the issue of health care.

“Quit distorting my words. It’s bull——,” Santorum told a New York Times reporter who pressed the question.

[snip]

In response to repeated questions on the matter, Santorum told reporters that Romney was an unfit Republican nominee because of his work on health care as former Massachusetts governor.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: mediabias; ricksantorum; romneycare; santorum4romney; santorumgaffes; santorumunhinged; swearingsantorum

1 posted on 03/26/2012 6:26:23 AM PDT by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Well, somebody needs to. Are New York Times reporters sacred?


2 posted on 03/26/2012 6:27:13 AM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla; al baby

Why is this a BFD?

Did you see the words they were using at the Obama fundraisers?


3 posted on 03/26/2012 6:30:10 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
In response to repeated questions on the matter, Santorum told reporters that Romney was an unfit Republican nominee because of his work on health care as former Massachusetts governor.

Romney is an unfit nominee because he doesn't care about the First Amendment's freedom of religion, the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, or the Ninth and Tenth Amendment restrictions on the scope of federal power. If the GOP leadership forces Romney's nomination through, their party deserves to die. I just hope America will survive (without resorting to another civil war) despite both major parties joining in treason.

4 posted on 03/26/2012 6:35:31 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Yeah, Rick was set up by the NYT, but he showed that he has the “fire in the belly” to take on the current owners of THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION: the Liberal Agenda Media, or LAM.

The NYT is trying to provide a smokescreen on the BS topic just before THE NINE SUPREMES begin to think about Obama”care.”

___________

Here is a dose reality to you, my FRiends:

Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”

The cancer of Obama”care” now extends to Obama last week choosing a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.
_______

The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.

As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.

Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.

Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!

Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.

IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.

To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.

Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.


5 posted on 03/26/2012 6:39:44 AM PDT by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Good on Rick.


6 posted on 03/26/2012 6:42:38 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("The door is open" PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
Well, somebody needs to. Are New York Times reporters sacred?

I submit respectfully that you missed the point. Let's just say that RS in this episode did not exactly remind folks of Newt going after Juan Williams or Jon King. I think that's the point....

7 posted on 03/26/2012 6:44:01 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
I'm looking forward to hearing the spirited defense of the NYT by FR’s Willard supporting contingent.
8 posted on 03/26/2012 6:53:03 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
The Santantrum apologists are going to admire this juvenile behavior. That much was predictable.

It merely illustrates that the Santorum campaign is in trouble, and their desperation is starting to show.

Get ready for more of the same around here, after Santo starts losing big in the upcoming states. They will blame our side, as well as Newt for Santo’s loss.

9 posted on 03/26/2012 6:54:50 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

I have no problem with Rick Santorum calling BS on a New York Times reporter trying to bait him. However, if he intends to run a national campaign against Obama he should be prepared for this kind of rubbish all day long. Santorum must realize that the MSM is totally in the tank for Obama and little more than his PR team. Santorum will constantly get this kind of set-up, ‘gotcha!’ question from the MSM but he has to discipline himself to keep his temper in check and not sound as if he’s whining. Leaders don’t whine.


10 posted on 03/26/2012 6:55:13 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Its not Newt's fault, unfortunately he's become irrelevent.

Its your man Willard and his big bucks that have drug this campaign into the gutter.

11 posted on 03/26/2012 7:02:31 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
[he has to discipline himself to keep his temper in check and not sound as if he’s whining. Leaders don’t whine.]

You just do not realize that it is already, way too late to change that label now. The Press knows exactly how to get under his skin. They study this stuff for a living.

They will not stop from here on out. And Santo has done this his entire career, only now, it seems to be amplified.

If you need to refresh your memory on how this procedure, of dumbing down the press should be conducted, simply go back on the CNN and FOX debates, where Newt Gingrich, literally and painfully, shredded the moderators and humiliated them with class and stellar Adult intellect.

He did not fly off the handle in a rage and shout childish nonsense like Santorum just did.

12 posted on 03/26/2012 7:04:26 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Saint Rick's campaign, in intent, has been every bit as dishonest as the Mittsters. If he had Mitt's money Santo would be running nasty wide open.
13 posted on 03/26/2012 7:06:44 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romney - Santorum: Twin Sons of Different Mothers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Oh my! Such language! Never knew Santorum was such a potty mouth.


14 posted on 03/26/2012 7:07:29 AM PDT by Mangia E Statti Zitto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
The Santantrum apologists are going to admire this juvenile behavior. That much was predictable.

It's like they know down deep that he's not that bright or capable - so they grade his performances on a curve to justify their continued support.

15 posted on 03/26/2012 7:07:49 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

If Santorum had Mitt’s money, we would have never heard of Mitt Romney.

Santorum is standing up to the lamestream media, and catching flak for it. On FR of all places?


16 posted on 03/26/2012 7:09:26 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("The door is open" PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Throwing a temper tantrum is not the same as standing up to the press.
17 posted on 03/26/2012 7:12:12 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romney - Santorum: Twin Sons of Different Mothers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Newt is far from irrelevant. You will also learn that the hard way. We tried to warn you about Santorum ahead of time, but your side refused to listen or understand.

You can label me how ever you like, but I simply do not care. My support for Newt is plain to see, and your constant accusations that my side, not supporting Santantrum, is a sheer indication that we are closet Romney supporters, is ignorant and childish.

I know your intent, you are hoping we will come unglued and say things that will get us banned. But here again, those of us who faithfully support Newt, are not like your temperamental icon.

18 posted on 03/26/2012 7:16:08 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

It’s better than 99% of Republicans.

Who say nothing.


19 posted on 03/26/2012 7:18:15 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("The door is open" PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Santorum is standing up to the lamestream media, and catching flak for it. On FR of all places?

Exactly. After years of wanting candidates who'll actually play smashmouth with Ministry of Propaganda "reporters," and now suddenly it's out of line.

20 posted on 03/26/2012 7:26:17 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Newt is far from irrelevant. You will also learn that the hard way. We tried to warn you about Santorum ahead of time, but your side refused to listen or understand.

You can label me how ever you like, but I simply do not care. My support for Newt is plain to see, and your constant accusations that my side, not supporting Santantrum, is a sheer indication that we are closet Romney supporters, is ignorant and childish.

I know your intent, you are hoping we will come unglued and say things that will get us banned. But here again, those of us who faithfully support Newt, are not like your temperamental icon.

RE: "You can label me how ever you like, but I simply do not care."

I think that is a journey every Newt supporter here has had to make - being called everything from sinners to liars to lovers of evil because they don't support the "good christian candidate". It used to upset me. It no longer does because I have learned something about the quality of santorum supporters.

Whatever you say about Newt voters, they are battle-hard and have learned to keep on walking with mud and blood splattered on their faces. It is now time for them to double down, dig in and shine.

PLANT YOUR FEET, LEAN INTO IT, BEAT IT BACK.

21 posted on 03/26/2012 7:30:08 AM PDT by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

For some reason, some people just cannot differentiate between that aspect you so plainly clarified.


22 posted on 03/26/2012 7:30:41 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

>> he showed that he has the “fire in the belly” to take on the current owners of THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION: the Liberal Agenda Media, or LAM.

Seriously?

You mean, with statements like this one?

QUOTE
“Well, ‘Stand Your Ground’ is not doing what this man did,” Santorum said Friday morning at a campaign event in Monroe, La. “There’s a difference between ‘Stand Your Ground’ and doing what he did. And it’s a horrible case. It’s chilling to hear what happened, and of course the fact that law enforcement didn’t immediately go after and prosecute this case is another chilling example of horrible decisions made by people in this process.”
ENDQUOTE

Santorum has JOINED IN SOLIDARITY with your COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION and the Liberal Agenda Media (LAM) in convicting a man before the evidence has been presented and his guilt has been established in a court of LAW.

Now tell me again precisely how he’ll use that awesome fire in his belly to stand UP to them? ‘Cause I don’t see it.


23 posted on 03/26/2012 7:41:19 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever
Thank you for that encouraging support!

I also noticed that after Santantrum lost Illinois, the nastiness, blame, and crass accusations were flying like Iowa crows in April.

The calls for Newt to drop out were somewhat vicious. They blamed him for Romney winning. Which is absolutely false. In all reality, looking back, it was the sudden rise and appearance of Santorum, that few voters hardly knew, that jumped into his support over night with both feet and no handhold.

So, the blame for Romney's lead could easily be blamed on Santorum. Especially his inability to make it happen. God knows, Santorum has had countless opportunity, but his pathetic lack of personality and ability has proven otherwise.

24 posted on 03/26/2012 7:51:35 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

If only the Gingrich camp and the Santorum camp showed even half the enthusiasm against Romney, that both direct at each other, Romney could be prevented from a first round win at the convention.

Then someone other than Romney, could end up the nominee.

I’d prefer that person to be Palin, but Gingrich and/or Santorum would seem to be in the catbird seat for a brokered convention win - since they’re already running. Frankly I could support either of them.

And yes, if it turns out we end up with Romney despite all best efforts, then Romney will have won fair and square, and I’ll support him 100% against Obama.

How about we work together? For now, that means stopping Romney’s momentum.

Attacking each other, won’t do that.


25 posted on 03/26/2012 7:57:32 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("The door is open" PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
I do not vote for any candidate, just for the sake of stopping another. I vote for a candidate, based solely on what they stand for, how they articulate their message, but more importantly, what issues they are committed to.

Santantrum is so far off the reservation, he is every bit as bad as Romney. Perhaps even worse, since he would be far less able to win against Obama in the General.

We can no longer play with outcomes. We absolutely have to win this election, and we need Newt Gingrich to do it. I will not falter one centimeter, until that is no longer possible.

26 posted on 03/26/2012 8:08:03 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP; TitansAFC
Thank you for that encouraging support!

I also noticed that after Santantrum lost Illinois, the nastiness, blame, and crass accusations were flying like Iowa crows in April.

The calls for Newt to drop out were somewhat vicious. They blamed him for Romney winning. Which is absolutely false. In all reality, looking back, it was the sudden rise and appearance of Santorum, that few voters hardly knew, that jumped into his support over night with both feet and no handhold.

So, the blame for Romney's lead could easily be blamed on Santorum. Especially his inability to make it happen. God knows, Santorum has had countless opportunity, but his pathetic lack of personality and ability has proven otherwise.

I appreciate and admire your passion. I wish we could bottle it. some of Newt's supporters, who have given above and beyond, are getting tired. I am glad to see you aren't.

Here is something TitansAFC posted a little while back, that really put it all into perspective for me, and I have been reposting it whenever I think it could lend even more clarity to someone trying to get the big picture of what is going on. It seems we are just script walking through 2008 all over again, and not just because of the Romney-McCain comparisons. Maybe there are people you know who will benefit from reading it.

Just stay true. I know we can do this!

TitansAFC

It’s Huckabee bullheadedly plowing ahead of Thompson by sheer belief in his own holiness all over again. The story always starts out the same: Conservatives get a credible alternative to the Establishment front-runner, and he starts getting attacked.

Then the SoCon who stayed under the radar (Huckabee then, Santorum now) becomes everyone’s plan B, because the guy who could have won (Thompson, Gingrich) was unloaded upon by the GOP-E money machine. Then the smug supporters of the upstart underdog all thump their chest and say “NO.....YOUR GUY SHOULD DROP OUT!!”

Then the vote is already split, the credible candidate becomes non-credible because of vote-splitting, and the upstart winds-up in second place because folks trying to beat the Establishment liberal switch to plan B because the smug voters of the only holy candidate make it loudly clear that they’re going to support the holy upstart candidate even if it means the Liberals win.

It JUST KEEPS HAPPENING.

In reality, what needed to happen was for Santorum to drop out early, when it became apparent that there was someone who could lead Romney in the polls for a long time, and when it was clear he had a friggin’ LITANY of ballot and delegate issues. Even if it was not Newt at the time (heck, replace Newt with Perry), Conservatives should have united around a single candidate with a full organization and little to no ballot and delegate issues, and there SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PLAN B. Conservative should have been forced to STAY united, learn to DEFEND their candidate rather than defect because the rich, Establishment Liberal was able to smear the credible Conservative with overwhelming cash.

If there had been no Santorum, Newt would be leading right now. He would be leading because we would have been united against Romney from day one, and there would have been no defections based on the fact that - by simply running under the radar - someone else rises because they haven’t been unloaded on.

We CANNOT keep doing this. We CANNOT keep Santoruming and Huckabeeing ourselves based on some sick notion of the holiness of a politician. We cannot keep some broke one-percenter in the race because they were able to show well in Iowa after living there for two years and facing almost no attacks because of their low polling. We cannot keep rewarding these guys for throwing Hail Mary passes when we have a chance to defeat the Liberals. No more “shoestring” campaigns, no more one-percenters who surge in time to do well in Iowa, no more long-shot dreams based on the notion that some candidate is the mostest Christianest candidate of them all.

No more Huckabees, no more Santorums. No more long-shots who surge in Iowa. Rule them out before they ruin another Primary season. Santorum was never going to get 1144 delegates - it was NEVER going to happen. The fact that people bull-headedly refused to waver from him KILLED us - and then they turned around and taunted Newt and Perry voters for voting for Santorum in desperation, citing the vote count as if nobody knows what was actually happening. No more Santorums, no more Huckabees. No more long shots, period.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2861639/posts?page=96#96

27 posted on 03/26/2012 8:13:29 AM PDT by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
This is truly comical. When Gingrich calls the press out on something, he's showing courage, spine, the champion of the of oppressed conservative masses. When Santorum does it, well he's just a juvenile, whiner, crybaby. I'm sure I'll have a Gingrich supporter explain the nuanced difference to me shortly, though.
28 posted on 03/26/2012 8:14:32 AM PDT by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
I'm sure I'll have a Gingrich supporter explain the nuanced difference to me shortly, though.

More likely they'll just call you and Santorum names.

29 posted on 03/26/2012 8:22:12 AM PDT by Fresh Wind ('People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.' Richard M. Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever
“being called everything from sinners to liars to lovers of evil because they don't support the “good christian candidate”.

You left out Mass Murders of the Innocent. Yes it has been a battle and we continue to Stand with Newt.

If Santorum wins the nomination our hands are clean his supporters were warned.

30 posted on 03/26/2012 8:28:47 AM PDT by Bailee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever
“being called everything from sinners to liars to lovers of evil because they don't support the “good christian candidate”.

You left out Mass Murders of the Innocent. Yes it has been a battle and we continue to Stand with Newt.

If Santorum wins the nomination our hands are clean his supporters were warned.

31 posted on 03/26/2012 8:29:03 AM PDT by Bailee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Rick’s conduct is just not presidential. I say that in view of this incident, and also of yesterday’s eager pandering to the leftists over the Trayvon/Zimmermann issue.


32 posted on 03/26/2012 8:31:51 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

I smell toast.


33 posted on 03/26/2012 8:37:53 AM PDT by sand lake bar (You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Santorum is standing up to the lamestream media, and catching flak for it. On FR of all places?

Presidential-wannabe Santorum lacks the intellectual agility to meaningfully and powerfully stand up to the press so he resorts to foul language like a teenager in a temper tantrum. He has the thinnest skin of any GOP candidate running.

Will the "sainted" senator's supporters praise him? Undoubtably.

34 posted on 03/26/2012 9:39:20 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bailee
If Santorum wins the nomination our hands are clean his supporters were warned.

Amen.

35 posted on 03/26/2012 9:44:17 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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