Well, that's almost enough reason to make me want to vote for the Arizona Senator.
Here is a transcript of the nanny statish Santorum taking his former colleague down. Snip:
Well, number one, John McCain will not get the base of the Republican Party. I mean, there was a reason John McCain collapsed last year, and it’s because he was the frontrunner, and everybody in the Republican Party got a chance to look at him. And when they looked at him, they wait well, wait a minute, he’s not with us on almost all of the core issues of…on the economic side, he was against the President’s tax cuts, he was bad on immigration. On the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country. He is for bigger government on a whole laundry list of issues. He was…I mean, on medical care, I mean, he was for re-importation of drugs. I mean, you can go on down the list. I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion. And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.
All this from a man who went out of his way to make sure Arlen Specter was re-elected to the Senate over Pat Toomey.
My objections to "Santorumism" can be read here.
My mother said it best, "Who exactly am I supposed to vote for?"
My mother's a faithful GOP voter in Virginia since the 1960s. She's voted for very Republican on the ballot except for casting ballots for Harry Byrd, Jr. and Virgil Goode when he ran as a Democrat for Congress.
We rarely talk about politics, but when I chatted with her on Sunday she broached the subject about the primary. She said she doesn't have a clue who to vote for because every single major candidate has certain influential members within the party savaging them and bringing up portions of their apostasy from the GOP creed.
This should "ring the alarm" at the RNC. When rock-ribbed Republicans like this are scratching their heads at the candidates offering for election, the Party has major problems. She's not the only person I've heard express this sentiment and according to the national stories and polls, this isn't just anecdotal.
I'm afraid to say that unless a divided convention produces a nominee outside of the current crop of candidates, it's going to be a nice year for the Democrats. It's obvious the grass roots "core" is not going to be united and enthusiastic about the nominee if it comes from McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani or Romney.
santorum
You are absolutely right about Santorum. Toomey should have been the candidate.
But, Santorum is absolutely right about Sen. McCain. I don't know if I can support him as candidate. If Thompson drops out, I might have to hold my nose for a liberal - Romney. At least he seems somewhat intelligent.
Huckaclinton just seems like a cross between Clinton and Carter.
Rudy, maybe, but too liberal and New York.
If Thompson drops out - what do you think of a Romney/Thompson ticket?
A Thompson/Romney ticket
A Thompson/Romney ticket might not be out of the question. However, My reservations about Mr. Romney are enormous...perhaps as great as those you voice over McCain. Would Thompson mitigate the Romney drawbacks? I'm not so sure.
It's times like these I wish Mark Sanford had decided to run.
Romney
Norm, I'm curious as to what your reservations are about Romney. I have had many people tell me they "don't like" Romney, but few have articulated good reasons for this beyond the "authenticity" factor. Romney is my current second choice behind McCain for that reason, but I think he's a pretty impressive candidate. Care to elaborate on your reservations?
Zach, Some of my
Zach,
Some of my reservations stem from the "authenticity" issue. I can understand when someone changes their views on a particular issue -- most people do. But in Romney's case, he strikes me as having situational principles -- run against Ted Kennedy? I'm more conservative than Newt ever was. Run for Mass. governor? I'm didn't mean it. Run for president? Ididn't mean what I said when I ran in Mass.
I consider that a character flaw, and a fatal one at that.
But beyond authenticity, it's his approach to government that leaves me cold. He's said he likes to dig into the data, pour over the charts, really get into the nitty-gritty before making a decision. That may be fine behavior for someone running a consultancy, but when it comes to government, it's positively Nixonian (he, too, delighted in the details...and the results were positively horrible).
I thought that after the Dukakis episode, America had turned its collective back on Massachusetts technocrats. Can memories really be that short? Perhaps so.
Romney's dalliance with state-run health care also ought to be a warning to anyone who believes in free markets. Early on, he said he wanted to bring that model to the nation...and given it's rising costs and problems, I shudder to think what sort of monstrosity he would unleash on the Republic.
Romney has been on both sides of the Bush tax cuts (opposing them as governor, supporting them as a candidate). As Bob Novak once said, Republicans were put on this earth to cut taxes. Where does Romney really stand? I suppose it depends upon which way the wind is blowing.
One thing that really got me, though, was when he was asked a question about the first thing he would do as president. His answer was to put together a great team.
Thin, lukewarm gruel if there ever was.
And that's when it hit me...the real reason I don't like Romney, aside from the lack of substance, the absence of gravitas, and the elastic principles is his utter lack of inspiration.
More than anything else, presidents in the media age must inspire people. Reagan inspired people. Clinton inspired people (other people, not me), and for a time, even the current president inspired people. Romney doesn't. He is a cold, calculating, triangulating, blue-book mish-mash of a politician. He has no vision, no spark, no substance.
There is no "there" there to Mitt Romney.
That might make him a fine Secretary of Commerce. But it makes for a lousy commander-in-chief.
Post new comment