Monday, January 14, 2008
|
|
Santorum's Spotless Conservative Credentials ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:42 AM
|
|
As you probably know, Rick Santorum has been doing the rounds, attacking John McCain. Fair enough. A lot of what Santorum has to say about John McCain is true, but though he was a good Senator, it should be noted that Santorum didn't always toe the conservative line, either.
Given the chance to support conservative challengers to liberal Senators Arlen Specter and Linc Chafee, on both occasions, Santorum backed the liberal Senator (Note: in both cases, I opposed the liberal incumbent) ...
Here's how The American Spectator put it:
Santorum backed the pro-abortion Specter in the 2004 Senate primary against kindred conservative then-Rep. Pat Toomey.
Here's what Stephen Moore wrote over at NRO back in 2004:
... Santorum is actively working to undermine Pat Toomey's candidacy. He has discouraged donors from contributing to Toomey. He has cut TV ads for Specter that portray the senior liberal senator as a friend of the taxpayer. He has staff people in Pennsylvania actively campaigning against Toomey.
Worst of all, Rick Santorum is running around Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., perpetuating the myth that Pat Toomey is "too conservative to win in Pennsylvania."
... Now, before someone says that I am writing this because Santorum said something bad about John McCain, here's what I wrote back in March of '06:
While I am certainly for Santorum over Casey, you can't help but see the irony here.
When fellow conservative Pat Toomey was fighting an uphill battle for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Republicans (including Santorum) worked against him. In fact, in 2004, Steve Moore wrote in National Review that "Santorum is actively working to undermine Pat Toomey's candidacy."
Of course, without conservative leaders even supporting him, Toomey narrowly lost the primary election to liberal incumbent Senator Arlen Specter. Now, just two years later, Santorum finds himself down in the polls and fighting for his political life.
I'm not gonna' call it karma, but it is ironic.
... This does not undermine everything Santorum has to say -- or his admirable tenure as a Senator -- or his pro-Life voting record -- either. But before we start making this man the arbiter of everything conservative, it's important to note that when it comes to casting stones ...
|
|
|
Also, let us not forget Santorum endorsed Spector for President in 1996. In 1996 Spector was actively running as the only pro-abortion candidate in the race for the Republican nomination. |
|
I left the republican party in Sept.
2006, and Santorum was part of the
reason. He supported Specter in the
race against Toomey, and he was reward-
ed by Specter when Specter did almost
nothing to support Santorum in the
Santorum/Casey race. But even before
then it was obvious that the republican
party was fractured. They were given
a golden opportunity in 1994, and they
blew it. They blew it, big time. How
did they blow it? Too much power, and
too much greed. But don't worry, the
dem's will do the same thing. I've
had it with both parties. |
|
For stating the unvarnished truth.
And don't forget, Santorum also advocated, right here in the pages of Townhall.com, "dedicating a larger percentage of our GDP to foreign aid."
He also advocated sending BILLIONS of dollars to AIDS charities in Africa.
The FORMER Senator from Pennsylvania had a very hard time distinguishing between government sponsored and enforced redistribution of wealth and real charity, prefering the former to the latter.
Santorum isn't a conservative, he simply stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. |
|
not a conservative?
Who knew? sarcasm/off |
|
Yes, this little out-play of Santorum's to defeat Toomey and let Arlen Specter, the anti-Conservative Senator from Pennsylvania was part of the problem with me leaving the Party. I didn't feel too badly when Santorum got his come-uppance from the voters, because, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
What mostly caused me to leave the party was the #1 problem with Bush and most of the major Republican leaders, the Amnesty for illegal aliens trying to be pushed through the Senate by McCain and Kennedy. Keeping the borders safe and illegals out of the USA is of the utmost importance, much more important than the terrorist threat.
If we can't keep out millions of people wanting to come to the USA every year, then what is the use of spending trillions of dollars on a war, mainly for other people's benefit?
Tough luck, Santorum, and NEVER will I vote for McCain or other pro illegals (Giiulilani, Huckabee, etc.), for anything. |
|
No, John McCain is definitely NOT a conservative.
But being pro-Life alone, doesn't make you a conservative, either. |
|
Santorum gave a great stump speech. The fire in his eyes when he said the famous words: "ISLAMIC FASCISM" was just too much.
He's a caricature.
I haven't officially left the party, but the amnesty bill was the last straw. I will not support the party financially. I'll identify good candidates adn support the candidates directly. Not another red cent to the Republicans.
|
|
Pastor Lewis,
Bro, you just don't get it.
Politics is about winning elections.
It's much preferable to win a general election with a moderate Republican (Arlen Specter) who can W-I-N than it is to lose the election to a Democrat.
I like Pat Toomey, but it's true that he was "too conservative" to win the general election in PA.
So was Santorum---that's why he lost in '06 when the Democrats made a conscious effort to point out that Santorum was "too conservative for PA."
It was BETTER STRATEGY for the GOP to support Specter in the primary, because Specter was favored to hold the Senate seat.
If Toomey had won the primary, he would have LOST the Senate seat to the Democrat.
If I remember correctly, President Bush also supported Specter in the primary over Pat Toomey.
The irony of you writing this post which points out that Santorum supported Specter over Toomey is that YOU spent 2007 running around chastising Mitt & Rudy for not being conservative enough while at the same time you were supporting the moderate John McCain.
|
|
one hot minute,
According to the logic in your last post, wouldn't it be better to nominate the moderate John McCain, who can W-I-N in the general election, rather than nominate Mitt Romney, who will LOSE the presidency to the Democrats? |
|
Dan wrote;
--------------
"According to the logic in your last post, wouldn't it be better to nominate the moderate John McCain, who can W-I-N in the general election, rather than nominate Mitt Romney, who will LOSE the presidency to the Democrats?"
--------------
Dan, it may well be that McCain IS the Republican who could perform best in a general election, but that wasn't Matt's point.
My point is about strategy, while Matt Lewis' point is about fidelity to ideology.
It's ironic because Matt Lewis isn't supporting the most conservative candidate in the current GOP field, yet he slams Santorum for not supporting Toomey.
Santorum's point about Toomey was about strategy, although now Santorum's point about McCain might be about fidelity to ideology, although I think Santorum's objection to McCain ALSO involves strategy.
But yes, it is possible that McCain IS the Republican who could perform best in a general election.
However, Santorum's point about McCain is that he alientates a good percentage of the REPUBLICAN base, so any advantage McCain might have in a general election with independents and moderates could be cancelled out by his alienation of the GOP base.
Personally, I can't believe any Republican would be moronic enough to sit out the election and enable a Dhimmicrat to win the White House if McCain were the nominee, just like I don't think any rational Republican would be dumb enough to actually turn their back on Rudy because he isn't pro-life or on Romney because he is a Mormon.
But determining who is 'the Republican who can win the general election' is what we've failed to come to a consensus on---some think it is McCain, some think it is Rudy, while others think Romney would perform best in a general election. |
|
Fair enough. Good points.
I think McCain is the most electable because of his appeal to moderates and independents, who, as we know, decide the elections.
The conservative base may not like McCain, but as you point out, I find it very difficult to believe that they hate McCain enough to not vote and thus allow Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to become president. Though conservatives may disagree with McCain on many issues, a McCain presidency would be INFINITELY better for conservatives than a Clinton or Obama presidency, and conservatives have to realize this.
McCain, I believe, will retain the conservative base and then draw in large amounts of independents and moderates (maybe even some Democrats). All of the polling for the past year shows McCain either defeating or drawing even with Clinton and Obama. The same polls show Romney getting absolutely pasted by both. Romney has very little appeal to indys.
McCain would maintain all of the Bush states, and then even bring a few Kerry states into play, like New Hampshire, and (if Rasmussen is to be believed) Pennsylvania and Maryland. McCain even performs very strongly in Wisconsin and Connecticut.
Aside from all this though, I think that if Romney is the nominee, domestic policy will dominate the campaign, and we'll get crushed. If McCain is the nominee, foreign policy dominates the election, and that is where we Republicans are the strongest, and have the best chance at beating the libs. |
|
This is good to see. I don't like how the Republicans are abandoning the "Eleventh Commandment," and Romney has been the worst offender, either throwing up negative ads himself or having his minions, like Santorum, do it for him.
Santorum's commitment to conservative candidates is spotty at best. I love how he backed Chafee and Specter, but finds the more conservative McCain such a problem. It's good people are pointing this out.
I truly think there are a lot of opinion makers, like Hewitt, Santorum et al who are more concerned about losing their power than they are about the GOP losing in November.
We shouldn't be trashing McCain and Huckabee. Some pundints are acting like spoiled children. |
|
The Republicans are not guided by principal. They only seek to maintain political power. Period. Now run along like good little foot soldiers and vote REPUBLICAN! YEAH TEAM!!!
Disgusting. |
|
Dan wrote;
--------------
"I think McCain is the most electable because of his appeal to moderates and independents, who, as we know, decide the elections.
The conservative base may not like McCain, but as you point out, I find it very difficult to believe that they hate McCain enough to not vote and thus allow Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to become president. Though conservatives may disagree with McCain on many issues, a McCain presidency would be INFINITELY better for conservatives than a Clinton or Obama presidency, and conservatives have to realize this."
-------------
Friend, as you point out, we're on the same page.
My HOPE is that no Republicans would not sit out the election regardless of who our nominee is, but I'm not yet convinced of that.
To me, the war against Islamic Jihad is the number one issue.
But I fear there are a lot of Republicans (mostly supporting Huckabee) who feel that abortion, same-sex marriage, and 'being a "real" Christian' take priority over the war. Thus, they may be inclined to sit out the election if the GOP nominee measures up short in any of those metrics.
I would much prefer Mitt or Rudy to actually be President over McCain, but I'll be first in line on Election Day to vote for McCain if he is our nominee.
As we both agree, ANY Republican (excluding Ron Paul) is better than Obama or Clinton. |
|
|
|