Pages

Friday, March 23, 2012

Speak No Evil

Allahpundit begins his post over at Hot Air with this line: “Faced with the reality that his chances have collapsed, the Sweater Vest begins to unravel.”

I haven’t yet weighed in on who I’d vote for in this presidential primary cycle.  Well, that’s not entirely true.  Prior to the Iowa Caucuses, my support was going to Thad McCotter.

Thad McCotter wasn’t allowed to participate in the Fox News/Washington Examiner Iowa Republican Party debate. Criteria for inclusion in the debate did not allow several other candidates, or potential candidates, to participate in the debate, including Buddy Roemer and Fred Karger who did not meet the polling criterion of at least 1% in 5 national polls.

Shortly after the debate in Ames, Iowa Thad dropped out of the race saying in an interview with The Detroit News that, "If they keep you out of the debates, you are out of the conversation, and you can't run. It was sort of death by media."

It is my considered opinion that if McCotter had been in the Ames debate that the GOP political landscape would look very different today and for the better.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 Rick Santorum uttered something unbelievably reckless:

“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”

Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”

Many of my blogger friends have come out strongly for Rick Santorum.  I had chosen to wait and watch.  I’ve waited long enough.

Despite the protestations of Erick Erickson of Red State who opined, “Much hay is being made of Rick Santorum saying he’d prefer Obama to Romney. Except that is not what he said or what he meant. Certainly he could have had a clarifying clause in his statement, but given the context, I think he was saying no more and no less than what I have been saying.”

Erick, he said, “…we may as well stay with what we have…”  Even the most rudimentary student of the English language or PoliSci 101 knows the inference was to vote to give the errand boy sent by grocery clerks a second term.

Then there’s Stacy McCain who jumped on the Santorum bandwagon after Herman Cain bowed out of the race following his unfortunate bimbo eruption.  No more stalwart supporter can be found in the dextrosphere.

Stacy posted his thoughts saying, “Santorum was making the same argument Phyllis Schlafly made in her 1964 classic, A Choice Not an Echo. He is saying something he has said many times—and something Newt Gingrich has also said—that Romney fails to offer a clear contrast to Obama. In this context, when Santorum said ‘we might as well stay with what we have,’ he clearly meant to express what the reaction of regular voters would be, if presented with someone who is just ‘a little different’ than the incumbent.  Santorum did not express himself clearly, but awkwardness of expression is not the same as endorsing Barack Obama’s re-election.”

Erickson and McCain both agree that Santorum was, shall we say, inarticulate.  I believe it goes much deeper.

Whoever the next president is, will appoint up to three Supreme Court Justices during his term. Those appointments are for life.  “Staying with what we have” means that Obama will appoint liberal justices who will be activists who could, potentially, increase the threats to the rule of law and further infringe upon our liberty.

During a September 2001 Chicago public radio program that aired on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM on September 6, 2001, titled “Slavery and the Constitution”, then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama said, “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Another point to be made is that the Democrats took solid control of the Senate and the House in 2006.  Their progressive agenda, along with squishy Republicans is what put this country on its knees.

A clear message was sent to the Houses of Congress in the 2010 election via the Tea Party Movement.  It takes time to sever the tentacles of the monster that has held our government hostage for the past six years.

If Romney does become the nominee at the GOP convention in Tampa, we must coalesce behind him.

I find that Rick Santorum is easily led astray by the Left’s taunting of him.  He lacks focus.  He spends too much time with long knives out for his rivals and not enough time attacking the real problem—the current occupant of the Oval Office—a man who is committed to the radical transformation of the country we love.

Four more years will only make the community organizer bolder and brasher and more narcissistic.

Santorum made an egregious mistake uttering those words and I join Jeff Dunetz of Yid With Lid, who today, has withdrawn his support.

Dunetz writes, “Yesterday, Rick Santorum showed himself too immature to be President of the United States.”

He continues, “I am sure Santorum will try and walk back the statement but is too late, the damage has been done.  Rick Santorum committed the ultimate sin for a 2012 GOP candidate—saying Barack Obama would be preferred over his opponents. This was hyperbole, which is both false and irresponsible.”

“Barack Obama represents the biggest threat to individual freedom in my lifetime (Joe Biden might even say in the past 500 years). Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney would be far superior to Barack Obama. With his suggestion to the contrary, Santorum proves himself to be less than ready to handle the job.”

Santorum’s recklessness in the heat of battle is also a clear indicator that he is not ready for prime time.

UPDATE:  On Friday’s edition of Your World, Neil Cavuto said, “A lot of folks think you committed political suicide.” Santorum replied, “Neil, this is just laughable…the highest priority in this country is to defeat Barack Obama. And, what I was saying there was, if we don’t have a choice, then the American public may decide to keep Barack Obama, that’s all I said.”

In the video embedded below, Santorum sounds pathetic and panicky as he attempts to walk back his disastrous comment.

Linked at The Lonely ConservativeBefore It's News and Sentry Journal.


2 comments:

  1. I'm with you. I was on the Santorum bandwagon briefly, then he started losing focus and saying things that just made me cringe. I took some heat from some of my readers. Then he did this. Who knows, maybe they buy his explanation. I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @The Lonely Conservative,

    Smart girl. Thanks for stopping by and posting your comment. Enjoy your weekend.

    ReplyDelete

Please scribble on my walls otherwise how will I know what you think, but please don’t try spamming me or you’ll earn a quick trip to the spam filter where you will remain—cold, frightened and all alone.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...