GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
This is the text of one of Mitt Romney’s calls that are going out to voters in selected Super Tuesday states:
“Hello, this is Senator Rick Santorum calling to let you know I am supporting Mitt Romney and urging you to support him next Tuesday.
“As Republican leader in the U.S. Senate, I worked hard to stop the democrats and help pass a conservative agenda. A few senators like John McCain stood in our way. John McCain voted against the president’s tax cuts, worked with Ted Kennedy to pass what many people call amnesty for illegal aliens and he even opposes the marriage amendment that says that marriage is between man and woman.
“As a conservative I don’t agree with McCain on many issues and I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction. Please join me and other conservative in voting for Mitt Romney this Tuesday.”
Two weeks ago, Santorum went on Mark Levin’s radio show and said the following:
The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.
Now, Rick Santorum has been on the warpath against McCain for the past few weeks, but it seems as if Rick didn’t always despise John as much as he seems to nowadays. According to McCain’s former chief strategist John Weaver, that (shockingly) wasn’t always the case:
“Rick Santorum begged for John McCain to campaign for him in 2006. In fact, ‘begged’ doesn’t do it justice. And as a good conservative and party leader, McCain did so. He did multiple events for Santorum, recorded calls and an ad, and raised money for Santorum. When Santorum was begging for John, he never raised a word about any concern about McCain. In fact, he praised him. Perhaps he was desperate then. Perhaps he is desperate now.”
Indeed, according to this Bloomberg news report, Santorum was more than willing to accept the help of a person that he felt “was leading the charge on the other side” as long as he was able to raise some money and get a boost in the polls. Nice, Rick. Real nice.
Rick Santorum is a party loyalist, the third-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate and a staunch ally of President George W. Bush. John McCain is a Senate rebel with many causes, from banning torture to routing pork-barrel spending, who has clashed with Bush on several of them.
Santorum is also in the political fight of his life in his home state of Pennsylvania, trailing his Democratic opponent by 12 percentage points in a recent poll. So when he wanted a popular Republican to appear with him at private fund-raising events on Dec. 2, he turned to McCain.
McCain on Dec. 13 said he has revived his Straight Talk America PAC to help raise money for Republicans in 2006. “We hope to have Senator McCain back in Pennsylvania next year,” said Virginia Davis, spokeswoman for the Santorum campaign.
Writing in the latest addition of the Weekly Standard, Stephan Hayes notes:
In 2006, when Santorum was running for reelection, he asked McCain to come to Pennsylvania to campaign on his behalf. When McCain obliged, Santorum put the video on his campaign website, listing it first among “key events” of the year. That’s gratitude, Santorum-style.
The fact that the Romney campaign is trying to peddle Santorum’s diatribes against McCain even though they seem to have magically materialized last month is astonishing.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Rick Santorum is a grade A - A$$hole for what he is now doing to McCain. I know - he was my senator for 12 years. If he doesn’t like him or his policies that’s fine but if he actually had integrity then he wouldn’t have sought his help last year.
The guy deserved to lose by the 18-point landslide that snuffed him out last year.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Too late. McCain is the consensus pick by now…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
You see guys, McCain is the best conservative. Get in line behind the Fork-Tongued Express and accept the fact.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
LJ,
I have quotes from Santorum from over a year ago saying “anyone but McCain.” So, this has been around awhile.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
This is a bit of a reach. You imply that Santorum is being disingenuous with his criticism of McCain. But if you recall that race as I do Casey was portraying Santorum as too conservative for PA and out of step. McCain was an obvious attempt to blunt that criticism, yet Santorum never pretended to agree with McCain on his more liberal positions. So if you were to charge that Santorum was using McCain’s moderate status to boost his own standing, he is guilty. But that’s about all one could say.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Axel is dead on in #5
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Tommy,
Yeah. Santorum has been on an anti-McCain crusade for ages now. And I’m not sure I buy the “if he didn’t like his ideology, why did he ask him to campaign for him?” line. We have videos of John McCain gushing about Romney in 2002, but there’s evidence to suggest McCain’s hatred of Romney goes back well before that campaign (during the Olympics funding congressional debate). This sort of stuff happens in politics. You campaign for people you don’t like, you ask for help from people you don’t like. It’s called party loyalty. Santorum helped Arlen Specter during the Toomey challenged; this undoubtedly saved Specter, and undoubtedly ruined some of the report Santorum had with Pennsylvania conservatives, harming his re-election effort in 06. When you’re a team player like he was for Specter, you’re entitled to vigorous party support; especially from members of Specter’s wing of the party.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I don’t know, I mean the list is so long it is hard to comprehend. I don’t know about the rest of you but if someone was to use the type of language that Mcain does where I work they would be without a job pretty quick. It shows unprofessionalism, a poor temper, poor judgement, and poor taste. You wouldn’t even be up for promotion at Mcdonalds with a record of that sort of behavior towards your co-workers. Am I wrong?
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
sorry that was a little off topic. I just can’t figure out how McCain gets the kind of respect he does being that he doesn’t seem to give respect to anyone. Is this his appeal?
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Matt,
I think Romney made a few political enemies with the 2002 olympics.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I think the larger point is that Santorum has an awful habit of running off with the mouth. It must be the Italian temper (I can say this because I’m half Italian). He was his own worst enemy? Who the hell comes out with a book with ultra-rightwing social views just before an election. Santorum’s biggest problem is that he was a senator from Pennsylvania but acted as if he was a senator from Alabama. Sooner or later that’s going to catch up with you.
Man-On-Dog sex?!?! Honestly!
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Santorum might move some votes.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Romney is on Fox now calling McCain a liberal.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I find Santorum credible. I find McCain not credible. I find Romney incredible. Usually I take Sunday off, I think I really do need the rest.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
“Romney is on Fox now calling McCain a liberal.”
Haha - The pot calling the kettle black.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Why can’t Mitt air some of John McCain’s praise for him as part of an ad???
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Adam,
Santorum is a true patriot who wants to keep the country from making a major mistake. He’s been in a position to see sides of McCain that most others haven’t seen. Mitt has been accused of being a phony by some, and there is indeed one in the race, and Rick knows who it is. Santorum knows that McCain is not a conservative, and he knows that he lacks presidential temperament and character. If you were in his position, knowing what he knows, you would be doing the same thing he is.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I thought McCain claims to be pro-life. I saw a video today where he clearly said he did not want Roe vs Wade to be overturned? Is that still his position, or did he flip on it with no one calling him on it?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Hmmm… kinda like when a certain Senator praised the principles and integrity of a certain governor…
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Sorry, Santorum is a prick. Asshole. Ungrateful sore loser. He was a poor Senator and a vile human being.
“Man that lost by 18 points” indeed is a title that does him and his politics of religious demagoguery justice.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
At least he’s smart enough to oppose McCain.
LJ’s in for quite a crash when Mr. Supercrazywonderlib wins the nomination and goes far left.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
McCain is looking past Tuesday toward the general. Here is something I snatched from the LA Times:
[McCain] said his campaign’s next hurdle, if he sealed the nomination, was to raise cash. “We’re talking about the size of the crowds that Sen. Obama has, my God, look at the money,” McCain told reporters aboard the campaign bus Sunday.
Right about now McCain is probably wishing all campaigns were publicly financed.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Poor McCain. Once he gets past the Republican yahoos and looks at the real world, he’ll see that no one supports him!
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The biggest problem here is that Santorum (and many others) are not campaigning FOR Romney - they’re mainly campaigning AGAINST McCain. This is the primary not the general. Let’s talk about why conservatism is great instead of focusing on trashing those who might be our nominee. The democrats will trash our nominee enough - we don’t need to do it for them.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“Let’s talk about why conservatism is great instead of focusing on trashing those who might be our nominee. The democrats will trash our nominee enough - we don’t need to do it for them.”
Ha—yeah talk about how great conservatism is as McCain pours lighter fluid on it and blows it up.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Jason,
“Fork-Tongued Express” hu? that’s catchy. unfortunately for you, all the polls show people trust what mccain says and NOT romney.
So how’s Mitt taking the Patriots loss in the World Series? I don’t think he “saw” that one coming.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
We will see what happens tomorrow and Tuesday in the race.
I bet that if Romney is viable and wins (400-470) delegates Tuesday and remains in striking distance of McCain, you might see HUGE endorsements for Romney this week. People who were afraid to endorse when he was on deaths door, might come out if he looks to have life on Tuesday night.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
LJ,
WHY DON’T WHY TALK ABOUT ALL OF YOUR BOY’S WONDERFUL ENDORSEMENTS THAT HE’S PEDDLING?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Politics is weird……it even made me like Mitt Romney.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I was never a huge fan of Santorum’s, as he seemed entirely too conservative on the whole. I was actually see Casey elected, since a prominent pro-life Democrat might make some strides towards moderating his party’s views on social issues. But, the one thing I liked about Santorum, and it’s the same quality that initially attracted me to McCain, was his willingness to stand up for principle, despite the cost. It just astonished me when he decided to be the most conservative senator in the country despite representing a lightly blue state. That takes gumption. Also, his “Gathering Storm” speeches were pretty compelling. He wasn’t afraid to tackle big issues, in controversial ways.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
His cozying up to Specter in 04 was unforgivable, but at least he’s smart enough to fight McCain.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Matthew, please. Santorum was no where near the most conservative senator –not even close.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Amen. How can someone be conservative when he wants to blow up the whole middle east? The answer, he’s not.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Is it just me, or is it every time that some factual good news for Romney hits this site that an opinionated “attack” is short to follow?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Because race42008 is populated with partisan shills for super-lib McCain.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
sampo,
In 2006, only 4 senators had a higher ACU rating (his was 96). And unlike McCain, he seemed to get more conservative as time passed. Also, I weigh in conservatism not simply votes, but also action for a cause. If we just counted votes, folks that just thoughtlessly vote the party line, like Mel Martinez, would be considered solid conservatives. But, they’re not, because they don’t lead on any conservative issues. Santorum led both on social and defense issues at times.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
NTU has ranked McCain as more conservative than Santorum in 05 and 06.
The Club for Growth rates McCain higher in 05 which is the most recent i can find.
CAGW shows that McCain mops the floor with Santorum
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Peter,
That’s ridiculous and blatantly untrue. There are about 8 regular pro-McCain writers in the comments. There are between 20-30 regular pro-Romney commenters. McCain guys are vastly outnumbered by Romney backers.
And really? McCain is super-liberal? Do words have no meaning any longer? By that logic, Hillary Clinton is to the left of Josef Stalin.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Santoram is a man. Mac is a sellout all around.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
tyler, if you mean “more liberal than mccain” = “the man” (see 37) then you’re absolutely right.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
36, i think you’re confusing “weighing in conservatism” with being a tool for republican pharisees.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Rick Santorum lost all credibility in my state of Pennsylvania and became one of our most disliked politicians. I know people who rushed to the polls in 2006 to throw him out of office. He lost to a bland, mediocre Democrat in a landslide. Some of his pronouncements border on the lunatic fringe of politics. Yes, he begged McCain to campaign for him in 2006, but I guess that is no longer appreciated. He will also be remembered as the politician who pleaded for Republicans to vote for Arlen Specter in the primary and against Pat Toomey, currently the leader of Club for Growth. Talk about supporting a liberal! You can bet none of his calls will be used in Pennsylvania when our primary comes around in April.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Who knew you could actually stand on solid ground in saying that McCain (even in recent years) is more conservative than Santorum? I gotta be honest, until I started to dig, I wasn’t sure it could be done either.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Sampo,
Anything “can be done” if you’re shameless.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Here’s what Rick Santorum thinks about individual rights:
“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
He said quite clearly that government belongs in our bedrooms, that he doesn’t believe in personal autonomy.
I hated to see the Republicans lose any seats in 2006, because it meant we got Reid. But of the seats they lost, I was least sorry to see Santorum go down, after he made that comment.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Wasn’t Santorum the guy who claimed we found WMDs in Iraq?! That was a good time.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
BobH,
What’s going on “in the bedroom” that you’re so ashamed of. You don’t have to answer.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
BobH,
Jesus, how terrifying. I’ve never seen that comment before.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I didnt think it possible… but i actually agree with sampo. I’m estatic the patriots lost.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
tyler, you dont have to ask… let that sink in next time you click “submit comment”
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
You gotta hand it to Mac. He was aware that the Republican electorate had been dumped down to a travesty before everyone else was. Except for the Huckster.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Hillary is gonna claim the Giants win was an omen - mediocrity can beat the sublime.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Yeah, there was no question that Santorum let his social conservatism trump other conservative values. But, some of the stuff he was criticized for, on that front, was really unobjectionable. For instance, he was one of the few Republicans to repeatedly rail against the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which made invalidated all anti-sodomy decisions. The media turned his opposition into support for those laws. But, I’m deeply opposed to Lawrence v. Texas and I consider myself quite moderate on gay issues. I certainly have no desire to ban sodomy. Lawrence just happened to be an incoherent travesty of a decision. Opposing it doesn’t say anything about your position on legalized sodomy.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Tyler #47: “What’s going on “in the bedroom†that you’re so ashamed of?”
Nothing. What’s going on in my bedroom that is any of your or Rick Santorum’s business?
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I guess the stars have simply aligned me in opposition to you today Matthew (perhaps its because I am an aquarius). Bowers, which Lawrence reversed, was a terrible if not bigoted opinion. The idea that the police could enter a private home and arrest citizens for private conduct should offend every notion of liberty. But because only homosexual conduct was targeted it also offended the equal protection clause. The government simply has no business in an adult’s bedroom.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.â€
Scary stuff. Glad that piece of trash is on the dustbin of history now.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
For instance, he was one of the few Republicans to repeatedly rail against the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which made invalidated all anti-sodomy decisions. The media turned his opposition into support for those laws. But, I’m deeply opposed to Lawrence v. Texas and I consider myself quite moderate on gay issues. I certainly have no desire to ban sodomy. Lawrence just happened to be an incoherent travesty of a decision. Opposing it doesn’t say anything about your position on legalized sodomy.
OK, but let’s be clear about why Mr. Santorum opposed Lawrence v. Texas. It was not due to his steadfast love for the Constitution and it was not due to his love for states’ rights. It was due to his hatred for homosexuals and homosexuality.
He quite clearly sees no problem with those laws in principle (just look at the quote that BobH posted), so what’s really at work here is his radical social conservatism and hyper-religiosity leading him to oppose Lawrence v. Texas in particular, above all of the other misguided Supreme Court decisions that have been produced. Do I really have to list all of his anti-gay quotes? The man espoused a bigoted worldview. That, not his love for the Constitution, was what made him so oppose Lawrence.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Axel G,
Again, I’m not saying I favor these types of laws; or even that I prefer a constitution that allows them. I’d probably favor some sort of a constitutional amendment that confers a limited right to privacy. I’m simply speaking to the quality of the decision itself. As is true of almost everything Kennedy writes, it’s incoherent. It shows almost no reliance on the text of the constitution, shows a remarkable lack of consistency, and is poorly argued from start to finish. It is, in a word, unmoored. Scalia ripped him to shreds. We studied in my con law class- this is with a group of 18-22 year old liberal intellectuals. They made no attempt to defend Kennedy. An openly gay, extreme liberal, said “I’m sure this is going to sound crazy, but I agree with Scalia”.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Again, I’m not saying I favor these types of laws; or even that I prefer a constitution that allows them. I’d probably favor some sort of a constitutional amendment that confers a limited right to privacy. I’m simply speaking to the quality of the decision itself. As is true of almost everything Kennedy writes, it’s incoherent. It shows almost no reliance on the text of the constitution, shows a remarkable lack of consistency, and is poorly argued from start to finish. It is, in a word, unmoored. Scalia ripped him to shreds. We studied in my con law class- this is with a group of 18-22 year old liberal intellectuals. They made no attempt to defend Kennedy. An openly gay, extreme liberal, said “I’m sure this is going to sound crazy, but I agree with Scaliaâ€.
Yeah, the decision was shit, but that’s not why Santorum hated it so much.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:04 am
TLG,
That’s not quite right. If I recall, Santorum opposed Lawrence because of what Scalia quite rightly said towards the end of the decision; that after Lawrence, there was nothing preventing judicially imposed same-sex marriage. So it certainly had quite a bit to do with his feelings on marriage. But, I don’t think it’s fair to see he had “no problem with [anti-homosexual sodomy] laws in principle”.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:05 am
He just didn’t like what he saw as the logical conclusion of the decision. I could be mis-remembering his position though.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Matthew,
I have talked to Scalia about Bowers (this was before Lawrence) and it was clear to me that Bowers was about homosexuality and not privacy or due process. Because Bowers was a terrible decision it led to an “unmoored” Lawrence decision. Scalia, of course, hates decisions that rely on international law, as Lawrence did in part. Bowers to me was a modern day Dred Scott, a blot on SCOTUS jurisprudence.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Axel,
You know, Byron White and Powell were in the majority in Bowers. It’s not a decision I ever studied terribly, but White, despite being more conservative then his fellow Democratic appointees, was generally pretty solid on “civil rights issues”. It’s possible he was a homophobe, but I wouldn’t have bet the farm on it. And Powell was a moderate who would be, by today’s standards, to the left of O’Connor or Kennedy. He happily went along with the majority on Roe. I don’t know enough about the decision itself to say for sure, but these are two justices who could generally be counted on to leave their bigotry at the door.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:32 am
I’m just saying that no, I cannot prove that Santorum specifically railed against Lawrence due to his homophobia, but it’s patently obvious that what got him so fired up about it was just that, based upon his past comments about gays and homosexuality in general. I just don’t see him as someone that would oppose it in order to stand on Constitutional principle above all else.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Too little, too late. We would have had a strong, dynamic, charismatic conservative leader in Rudy Giuliani if people weren’t so STUCK on the abortion/gay rights issue. Now were going to have Hillary for eight years.