As was posted on the other thread, regarding the fact Santorum backed Romney:
So did Mark Levin in 2008 who did not view Huckabee or McCain as conservatives. You going to trash him too?
So who was right in 2008, Levin or Norris? I trust Levin's gut instincts over Norris'.
Romney has never been the answer, not in 2008, not now, not ever.
Levin supportered Mitt in 2008 to stop McCain.
Saintorum supported Mitt because he really was a believer in Mitt.
“Mitt is the man. A really great leader who I REALLY DO BELIEVE.” - Saintorum, 2008
I think they both had valid points, but they were ENDORSEMENTS, which by their nature are political, or personal.
Chuck Norris really loved Huckabee, so I can see why, since Santorum rejected Huckabee, Norris won’t endorse Santorum — that’s what makes endorsements political. It’s why candidates endorse, so they get endorsements back. Like why Christine O’Donnell endorsed Romney, why Haley endorsed Romney — because Romney supported them.
It’s why, some people say, Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in his senate primary.
I guess if Santorum had endorsed Huckabee in 2008, Norris might have endorsed Santorum in 2012. But would supporting Huckabee in 2008 made Santorum a better Presidential candidate today? Not really.
I find the whole endorsement-bashing thing to be distasteful. I should think that former Herman Cain supporters would be the first to reject this line of argument, given that Herman Cain endorsed Romney, for the same reasons, and at the same time, as Santorum did, and also said very nice things about Romney.
I don’t say this, as someone might come along and falsely claim, to “build Romney” up. My argument is that endorsements in the last throes of a presidential contest are more political than expositive, and we shouldn’t put so much emphasis on them 4 years later. 2012 is a much different landscape than 2008 was.