The Right Scoop
What is sad is all the brain-dead folks that actually pay attention to robocalls and TV commericals, etc. For anyone to be influenced by any of that is telling isn't it? My mind has been and is made up, know matter what the SuperPACs come out with, Santorum 2012. In fact, I have already voted early in Ohio, Santorum has at least 2 votes. :-)
I always wondered about Mark Levin's thoughts regarding Santorum's endorsement on Romney in 2008. Dirty politics, lol. Cracks me up. You rock Mark!
Newt is faith driven, and American spirited. Lets go Newt 2012! After 8 years, I pick RICK!
Sad to see so many rightscoopers lining up with Arlen Specter's #1 endorser.
Had Santorum backed Toomey, Arlen wouldn't have been there to pass ObamaCare.
So Santorum used to call Romney a conservative, now he says he's not a conservative.
Seems like the robo-call points out the opportunism, hypocrisy and dishonesty of Rick Santourm.
Maybe next they will play a robo-call of Rick's 2 endorsements of Arlen Specter. Or is that dirty too? Will you cry about those facts as well?
Dirty politics? Grow up, wait for the One to start his dirty politics and then start whining.
This goes to show part of a reason why most voters do not like Mitt. Also Mitt is starting to get desperate if he using this. This could be ammo for Rick to use against Mitt in the debate tomorrow. Rick can respond by saying that was before Obama and now he sees similarities between Obama and Romney.
It's hilarious! You have to admit that it was clever of them.
Really, think about it. If you endorsed a guy four years ago, but now you are running against him. Doesn't that leave you in a conundrum? Has your opponents views changed in the last 4 years?
What if you're attacking your opponent, in this case Romney about his past record, his flipping and flopping, his social views, and how he governed as Governor of Massachusetts. But, 4 years ago, you didn't think this was a problem and you endorsed him. You see what I mean.
I think that was the point in replying his endorsement.
Again, it was pretty clever of them.
Honestly, I didn't mind Romney either in 2008. What has changed dramatically is what we need in a leader. After the "fundamental transformation" that O has subjected us to over the past 3+ years, the last thing we need is an "establishment" leader. We need someone that is as outraged as we are and is eager to make the changes that are needed to restore our country. I just don't see that in Romney.
If Romney becomes the nominee but doesn't convince me that he is anything more than a Rino, I will not vote for him. Nobody hates what Obama is doing to my country more than me, but to put in a Rino Republican will only cause us to die a bit slower. We would be better off allowing Obama to destroy this country more than he already has and let people see the true result of far left policies. At that point, we may get a real leader again.
I'll beat you to the punch. Yes, Obama will likely nominate another flaming lib to the SC. I don't think Romney would do any different. George Bush Sr., another Rino, appointed David Souter, a very dependable lib vote.
oh please its frickin brilliant, you know damn well that if santorum had a tape of romney endorsing him and used it you would love it so just quit
In my opinion, you are mistaken.
This is blatant use of the tactics of the left. It is ridiculous and wrong to use something like this completely out of context. It makes Mittens look even more desparate than he already is.
If any of the other candidates did this, they would lose my support. It's dishonest and twisted.
So, Romney has become that which he claims to hate. It's just good politics isn't it Mittens? Nothing personal. He's a slimy politician and he deserves to be defeated. And even though the wolf wore sheep's clothing, he wasn't fooling anyone.
He and his supporters (and the GOP establishment) are absolutely below contempt. I hope they have their arses handed to them! They are pathetic.
Romney must drop out to preserve a shred of decency for the repubican party.
Did Santorum actually say this? I have read about it before. If it is true, that's not good for him considering so many conservatives despise Romney.
And we have another liberal extremist media spin taking a comment completely out of context, to spin it as something opposite of what was said.
... and life goes on in the world of liberal progressivism.
It seems like the Romney campaign doesn't mind playing dirty when it comes to other GOP candidates. But I'm willing to bet that in the general against Obama we would see McCain tactics 2.0 in play. The Romney campaign wouldn't play dirty at all.
Remember, Romney is the one that while on a prominent television outlet refused to call Obama a socialist. Romney insisted that Obama was just "in over his head".
That's one of my greatest gripes with the country club wing of the GOP. They all want to be Washington stars, that means playing nice with the enemy. In the end they end up being sellouts.
This is not an endorsement of Santorum. In fact, after looking at Santorum's voting record as documented by Erickson over at Red State I'm ready to throw in the towel and support Ron Paul.
None of these issues are going to matter if we don't get spending under control. You're worried Paul would gut the military? It's already going to happen out of pure fiscal reality if we don't get the budget under control. We are at the edge right now, we might already be at the point of no return.
Seems "emblematic" of former Senator Santorum's off the cuff ramblings he later regrets. I'm troubled with his record of being pro-union, big-spending, earmark-taking, frivolous malpractice-suit filing,etc. So playing a Senator's verbatim remarks in support of his opponent (saying you're a conservative-contradicting his assertions of today) from four years ago is bean bag. It also reminds me of a joke: a former Senator, an opportunist, and a gas bag walk into a bar. The bartender say's Hi Rick..sorry you handed Obama a second term for you own futile ego-trip.
Our elections are a joke anyway. The two parties pretty much decide behind closed doors who gets what votes. They will make the republican candidate look like he gave a good run for the money. If the republican wins, it will be their candidate of choice, and not ours. How do you think the establishment secures their status quo? Why do we get screwed no matter who wins? When has a modern day president ever done what he said he would do?
And he wonders why he is tanking in the poles? People all over the country are beginning to take notice of his negative policies but the Republican Party Elites still back him. True Conservatives will support anyone but Romney. As much as I hate to say it....George Soros was correct when he said there was little difference between Obama and Romney. All in all; the true color of Romney is coming out and it seems to be somewhat of a Pinkish RED.
What do you mean unearthed? This audio has been tweeted more than Whitney Houston's funeral .....
Santorum, again, caught dumb in a no dumb zone.
I wonder if this isn't crossing into legal jeopardy since it is no longer truthful and doesn't identify that it was from a previous election cycle.
Why is a recording in Santorum's own voice no longer truthful? Is it because Santorum has flipped-flopped on his support of Romney for his own political gain? How many times have Romney's old clips been played on this blog? I didn't hear any of you comment on how sleazy it was to play old clips about Romney being pro-choice even though you know his views have changed. Reagan was pro-choice as governor of California and signed pro-choice legislation. I'm glad he changed his mind and became pro-life. You'd think all conservatives would be glad that Romney has changed his mind and is now pro-life, too. I like Santorum, too, but you have to agree that a candidate's old views are fair game for both candidates or for neither. You have to make the same call on both ends of the floor if you care about fairness.
You don't think this is disingenuous??
Santorum supported Mittens as an alternative to McLame.
As much of a big gov't liberal that Mittens is, I'd still support him over McLame today.
Running these ads is pathetic.
Good question. I have wondered the same thing. I support Santorum but he has egg all over his face as do the others. Candidates should be held to the same standard as others. Its only fair which is a good thing. All these guys should just own up to their past transgressions and just be done with it so we can just move on to what they will do and not what they have done in the past.
So judging Santorum by what he said 4 years ago is disingenuous, but calling Mitt a "big gov't liberal" based on what he did as governor of a liberal state more than 4 years ago is perfectly fine. Sounds fair to me.
But just for the record, what is there in Romney's current platform (or his platform from 4 years ago) that makes him a "big gov't liberal"? Is it his plan to double the size of the State Department and put a colony on the moon? No, that's someone else. Is it his defense of earmarks or his calling abortion rights supporter Arlen Specter a "true conservative"? No, I think that was someone else, too. I guess everyone is allowed a mulligan except Romney. I wonder why that is?
It's because of the tense. It says Santorum supports Romney now, which is a lie. He doesn't. He supported him long ago. If it had said Santorum used to support Romney, that would be OK with me.
Romney is pro-life with exceptions.
Romney lied all over the place about Gingrich and I did object.
That's the problem with Romney he does and says things that's politically convenient. Just for his legacy. The way he mingles and panders with voters awkwardly trying to fit, there is obviously something ain't right about him. I don't trust him at all.
Yes, that was a little awkward. But Mitt grew up there and was recalling the things he remembered fondly from his youth. At worst it was harmless flattery not pandering. I didn't hear him promise the moon or anything else in return for votes. But if an occasional awkward moment bothers you, there is this guy with a teleprompter out there who is pretty smooth. At least he sounds real smooth when he has a team of speech writers to do the work for him while he's out golfing. Maybe you'd prefer him.
What type of pandering do you mean? Are you talking about the time he went to Florida where many NASA workers are being downsized by Obama and announced his proposal for a moon colony by the end of this decade? Oh wait, that was Newt. Sorry, I forgot that pandering's OK if Newt does it. I'm sure Romney has done some pandering, too, but it must have slipped my mind. Maybe you can remind us with something specific.
I know it's fashionable throughout the blogosphere to hate Mitt Romney for having the audacity to get out of bed in the morning, but the outrage is a bit premature.
We should reserve judgment on this until (a) we have some sort of confirmation as to who was behind the calls, and (b) I've heard the full audio for myself. If the call is trying to suggest Santorum supports Romney NOW, that would indeed be a lie. But if the audio is simply calling out Santorum for inconsistency in what he said about Romney in 2008 and what he's saying about him now, then that's a perfectly legitimate message.
No one is buying your lame attempt to make excuses for Mittens.
He did these types of dirty tricks in 2008 and has been doing it this entire campaign. He can't run on his own record b/c it sucks so all he can do is try to smear other candidates.
Mittens did it to Newt in Iowa. When asked about it, Mittens said by law he couldn't control the Superpac. When the very next day he was told that he actually could, Mittens responded by saying this is politics.
Mittens also let his Superpac try to smear Newt as being opposed to Reagan while Mittens himself was a "an independent during Reagan-Bush".
Mittens is as dirty as they come and has never been and never will be a conservative.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making "independent" expenditures about politics. That is why Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties because they must remain "independent".
Are you aware of something that overturned the U.S. Supreme Court's requirement that Super PAC expenditures be independent of the Candidate? Was it a signing statement by Obama, perhaps?
Maybe you should also check out this video of Rush calling out Newt for saying "The Era Of Reagan Is Over":
http://mrctv.org/videos/flashback-rush-calls-out-gingrich-saying-era-reagan-over
Newt has also been quoted as saying, "The Reagan Administration has failed" and "If Bush runs as a continuation of Reaganism he will lose". So how is it a smear to suggest that Newt was opposed to Reagan, given such comments?
If I were Santorum, I'd say that at that time he was proud to endorse Mitt, but when the ecomony collapsed and Mitt supported all the bailouts, it chaged his mind and he thought this country deserved better.
That'd be a good line for Santy to use in Wednesday's debate. I wonder if his website has anything to offer suggestions like that.
When I look at things like these, I have the hardest of time to imagine in what kind of swamp the guy will be floating comes November.... especially if "they" bestow the nomination upon him!!! I am telling you, it is going to be extremely painful to come out of bed and vote for him, even with nose plugs!!
Then vote for another RINO liberal...
I'll take a man who understands our nation's history, it's legacy, and it's values than a RINO liberal (Obamney) or a left wing radical (Obama).
It’s More Than The Economy, Stupid: Social Issues Matter
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/01/its-more-than-the-economy-stupid-social-issues-matter/
It is interesting that we are now at the point that we have to point out that social issues matter. After we have lost our core principles and abandoned the rule of law.
Government's core responsibilities: Protect "LIFE", and liberty, and judge righteously.
Social issues do matter, but Obama wants the narrative to be all about social issues so that we will forget the outrageous unemployment numbers, the outrageous price of oil, the outrageous debt. He can misdirect the conversation as he has through the LSM this week with Santorum. Look how that is going. Santorum was misinterpreted on several occasions, yet Obama comes out ahead on each one due to the LSM attacks.
The contraceptive argument is an intentional gameplan. Already, he has people believing that he came up with an acceptable compromise in a situation that did not even permit a compromise. He's clever and we need to combat that.
If we don't get the conversation back to Obamas failures (and that includes everything he's done), then he will win the election and we are on a downhill slide that will be hard to stop.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.