Tim Noah argued last week that Rick Santorum is the likely pick for the number-two slot on the Republican presidential ticket, a prediction that Dave Weigel endorsed soon after. With this in mind, it was noteworthy when Mitt Romney addressed the possibility during a Fox News interview yesterday.
Note that host Neil Cavuto didn't bring up Santorum's name; Romney did. Asked about running mates, the former governor said:
"I find it interesting that [Santorum] continues to describe himself as the real conservative. This is the guy who voted against right-to-work. This is the guy that voted to fund Planned Parenthood. This is the person who voted to raise the debt ceiling five times without any compensating cuts."
This is just fascinating. Mitt Romney, of all people, seriously wants Fox News viewers to believe that Rick Santorum just isn't conservative enough.
Romney's the guy who used to support abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants, and combating climate change. He distanced himself from Reagan, voted in a Democratic primary, helped create the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act, and described his political views as "progressive."
"I find it interesting that [Santorum] continues to describe himself as the real conservative"? I find it interesting that Romney continues to present himself as an arbiter of such ideological tests.
As for Santorum's votes to fund Planned Parenthood -- Republicans, including Reagan, have generally supported Planned Parenthood funding for decades -- this is especially rich. Not only was Romney comfortable with Planned Parenthood funding during his term as governor, but Romney even attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser -- at which Ann Romney dropped off a $150 donation to the group -- during his first U.S. Senate campaign.
If nothing else, it takes real chutzpah to make arguments like this on national television and assume no one will notice.
Leave a Comment:
That is a typical Romney's answer to all questions pertaining himself as anything but perfect....Punch the closest person to the subject.
Ask him about his healthcare bill, his answer will be about how he will repeal Affordable Health Care Act. Ask him about auto bailout, his answer will be how President Obama "ruined" the industry by it. Ask him about his conservatism, his answer will be about how Santorum is not a real conservative. Ask him about how his tax plan will add to the country's deficit, his answer will be how President Obama waging class warfare with the propose tax increase to millionaire.
Romney never answer any questions, he just deflect them to other people. And when he is pressured to answer the question to which he has no escape goat for (such as the one about the biggest misconception people have about him in the debate), he will simply said he has the right to answer just the question he wants to answer.
But of course none of that matter when he can give you 20% off your tax, right?
and what programs are on the chopping block to pay for a 20% tax cut across the board.........where will he get the money to run the government? Maybe he will ask congressmen and senators to take a pay cut.........
reminds me of the chicken in every pot and new car in every garage.....Please stop calling a lie.....politics
'The Last Word' last night discussed the lies told by candidates. The media for reasons known only to themselves decided to call lying,'spin'. It was not added that "I misspoke' also became acceptable. When blatant dishonesty is tolerated, blatantly dishonest people rise to power. Political speech should be held to the same 'truth in advertising' standards as a laxative is.
It is a fantasy that the Republican Party is in no trouble at all because their primary slugfest is identical to the 2008 battle between Hillary and eventual nominee Obama that produced a White House winner. This theory has been peddled by GOP establishment types eager to spin their bruising intramural fight as some strengthening exercise for the party. They're wrong. Romney and Santorum are puling support from two completely opposite electorates and splitting the GOP in half. 99 percent of every ad run in the GOP primary has been negative. There was a single ad that could be described as "negative" run during the entire Hillary/Obama contest. The GOP is a mess... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
It would be good if you were correct! Unfortunately, when Mittens finishes buying the nomination, the repuknican sheeple will unit behind their hatred of the scary black man.
But remember SadOldVeteran, The GOP has throughly pissed off the majority of women, and union workers. If we all get our butts out and vote, their hated should be nullified.
The whole thing is, Willard doesn't care whether what he says is true or not, which makes him a b.s.er, and his campaign is total and complete b.s. And he knows he can get away with it because the mainstream media will never call him out for being the breathtaking liar he is. There is literally nothing this guy will not lie about - there has never been a campaign like this. He smiles at you and lies in your face, and gets away with it.
My campaign is to get people to stop referring to them as the MSM! They are the Corporately Owned Media. As long as the repuknican party continues to be the more owned of the major parties, the Corporately Owned Media will continue their corporately assigned roles as echo chambers and message amplifiers for the repukes. Calling out the Corporate Mittens on lying is not a part of the corporate agenda.
It would be funny though if, after spending millions on negative ads against Santorum, Mitt were to announce that he can't find a better VP running mate in the whole Repulbican party.
I it is kind of funny but it is also incredibly pathetic how fast the Republican Party has raced to the bottom. Watching the Republican Primary is like watching a really bad and insane reality show; so very scary.
Why "chutzpah"? It's not like anyone outside of some fringe left-wing bloggers will really know or care. The media will Americans that one of our greatest Presidents -- Ronald Reagan -- routinely "took liberties with the truth" and Americans loved him for it.
It's grand to keep notes on the decline of our society, but there's nothing we can do to save it now.
Santorum for VP? I don't think so. Santorum for dog-catcher? Perhaps, as long it is for a dog-on-man position.
how do you know Willard is lying?
his mouth is open
Yeah but Santorum lies for the lord so he is far more holy and conservative.
The only Santorum gets the VP is if he is forced on Romney by party leaders or he has to make a deal for the nomination. Otherwise, I don't see Santorum on the ticket because he will polarize the women's votes. But the up side is that if Santorum were the VP candidate and the ticket were to lose, then it would be a major defeat for the Christian right. The crazies in the Republican party will not be able to blame moderates for the election defeat.
No, they just blame it on that RINO Romney.
There are a lot more better vp candidates than Santorum.
Of course there are. Trouble is, they're Democrats.
John Scalzi put it best:
"Dear GOP: A Romney/Santorum ticket would be like handing Barack Obama the largest, most delicious fruit basket ever created. Delivered by a pony. A sparkly pony. With ribbons in its mane. Named 'Buttercup.' Just so you know."
Much as I love Scalzi's writing, I must violently disagree - the whole Left would tremble in terror at the juggernaut of Romney/Santorum sweeping up and energizing ALL the right wing base.
Honest.
Underlining the principle that Republicans have been trending towards both in elected officials and judicial appointments: stay away from any kind of actual record in public service, because they can be used against you.
Steve is off base. Yes, Mitt Romney USED to support abortion rights and has since become pro-life. This is something he has been very forward and frank about though. He's never claimed to have never been pro-choice. Romney STILL supports equal rights for Gays and Lesbians, in the work place and such, as do the other candidates I think, but he does NOT support changing the definition of marriage and never has. Ditto for "gun control". Of couse Romney supports some regulation when it comes to fire arms, as do the other candidates. Unfortunately the term "Gun Control" has become nothing more than a "dog whistle" on the Right to accuse someone of not supporting the Second Ammendment. Mitt Romney has always been a strong proponent of the Second Ammendment and had a good relationship with the Massachusetts NRA. Mitt Romney NEVER supported Amnesty or Cap and Trade. Nor has he ever been a proponent of spending large amounts of money on any "Global Warming" measures. Mitt Romney argued in a debate for the Massachusetts Senate against Ted Kennedy that by running for the Senate he was not trying to apply Reagan/Bush policy on the state, but rather he was his own man and would do what is best for Massachusetts. To label Mitt Romney as someone who "distanced" himself from Reagan based on this one instance is a bit of a stretch. As a private citizen Romney did vote in a Democratic primary once, for the weaker candidate. This of course was to benifit the Republican candidate who by that time already had the nomination rapped up. Romney of course had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Obamacare. Romney said that he gives credit to santorum for being conservative, but not a Fiscal Conservative. He's right. Rick santorum is not a Fiscal Conservative.
Liberal journalists would like to paint Mr. Romney as a weird and robotic flip-flopper like Al Gore or John Kerry. Mitt is a businessman, and as expected, a businessman will make gaffes that jaded politicians like Kerry and Gore would not. Other than being exceptionally smart and good looking, Mr. Romney has little in common with those two gentlemen. The legitimate extent to which Romney may be compared to these two stems from Mitt’s demonstrated ability to consistently work well with people from opposing positions; both Kerry and Gore are well-known for their negotiating skills. Unlike Kerry and Gore, Mr. Romney has never served in Washington. All of his experience has been executive in nature. Unlike Gore and Kerry who have spent a lifetime building the Washington establishment, Mitt sees Washington as the cause of our great nation’s decline. He has spent a lifetime fixing declining organizations, and he stands the best chance of fixing our nation. It has been politics as usual that has lead to our country to a precipice. At heart, Mitt is not a politician. Nonetheless, he continues to display a nuanced and intricate political ideology, which belies a remarkably consistent cogency.
Firstly, As governor, Mr. Romney was faced with the decision to allow the cultivation of aborted embryonic human fetuses for the purpose of stem-cell harvesting and made a pledge against this abhorrent practice and now favors a pro-life policy. To his critics this is a tremendous flip-flop. Mr. Romney's earlier pro-choice position is actually very consistent with the position of most Republicans. According to polling data from both Pew and Gallup, the majority of Republicans across the country accede to some form of abortion, surgical or hormonal, in cases of rape, incest, and medical emergencies--the basis of Romney's early pro-choice position. What most Republican traditionalists object to are out-of-wedlock conjugal relations--Mr. Romney not only preaches fidelity but lives it. A majority of Republicans also recognize that even within the bonds of matrimony, utilizing contraceptive measures is a reasonable and responsible decision.
As for gay rights, Mr. Romney has always advocated the preservation of the nuclear family as the primary building-block of American society--he is a picturesque example of this advocacy. However, he does not believe that any American should be unfairly discriminated against in areas such as employment, healthcare, and housing on the basis of any arbitrary characteristic. As a strong advocate of state rights, he asserts that it is up to each state to decide moral issues including marital regulation--the U.S. Constitution makes no provision for the regulation of marriage.
As for gun control, I will let Mr. Romney's actions speak for themselves: "We had a piece of legislation that was crafted both by the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby. The pro-gun lobby said "this legislation allows us to cross roads with weapons when we're hunting that had not been previously allowed." And the day when we announced our signing, we had both the pro-gun owners and anti-gun folks all together on the stage because it worked. We worked together. We found common ground. My view is that we have the second amendment right to bear arms and my view is also that we should not add new legislation. I know that there are people that think we need new laws. I disagree with that. I believe we have in place all the laws we need. We should enforce those laws. I do not believe in new laws restricting gun ownership and gun use."
As for immigration reform, public polling indicates that the vast majority of all Americans prefer legal and lawful immigration. Americans believe the federal government should enforce existing laws and police the nation's borders. Mr. Romney has always supported this position, as well as streamlining the immigration process, especially for skilled and educated workers.
On climate change, Mr. Romney knows that he is not a climatologist and makes no pretense of being an expert on this matter. He recognizes that there is a balance between preserving our environment for future generations and immediate economic concerns which will require industrial growth and the extraction of natural resources. He acknowledges that pollution, especially industrial pollution, has had harmful spillover effects on people, and offenders should be accountable for mitigating these consequences. However, there is a direct connection between the U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil and the continuing loss of life from our nations's involvement in the Middle-East. Exploiting all of our natural resources in the short-term is an unwise asset management strategy, and the failure to wisely manage our environmental assets will lead to an environmental crisis that is much worse then our current financial crisis, but the obstruction of reasonable strategies that increase the rate of domestic energy production will diminish the U.S.'s long-term viable and its ability to protect these precious environmental assets.
Finally, ObamaCare is the gold plated, tricked-out Rolls Royce version of RomneyCare. Mr. Obama stole RomneyCare when he realized that his own public option healthcare plan would never be sufficiently palatable. Mr. Obama's public option plan strongly mirrored Hillarycare of the early 1990's, whereas Romneycare is based on the conservative counter-proposal of the same era. Unlike government run insurance, which Hillarycare proposed, Romneycare offers a market-based alternative that minimizes governmental intrusion in that sector of the economy. Admittedly, Romneycare indeed benefits private insurers, but private insurers are a vital financial component of America's economy. While Hillarycare would have immediately wiped-out that segment of our economy, Obama's public option would have been a slow release cyanide tablet with the same results.
Many conservatives opponents of Romneycare are unaware of the fact that every state wastes billions of dollars on medical care for uninsured people because of an ill-defined federal mandate that grants emergency medical treatment to everyone. Consequently, hundreds of thousands of people have learned that they can substitute the emergency room for a doctor's visit for free. Not only does that place a tremendous burden on taxpayers, it also clogs emergency rooms. But, the alternative to state funded emergency care is the potentially callus denial of life-saving procedures to decent people who find themselves without insurance through no fault of their own.
While a mandated insurance payment may feel like a tax to many irritated conservatives, it is not. Taxes usually aren't negotiable, and their revenue is not recycled back into the economy as quickly or effectively. Not only does it greatly alleviate the taxpayer's direct burden of paying emergency medical costs for uninsured freeloaders, it benefits them through lower average premiums. It displaces these costs onto private insurers who have a competitive incentive to keep medical costs as low as possible--a government option has no such incentive. To keep costs low in a public option, the government would have to institute significantly more regulations. Regulations are a strong disincentive to the reduction of medical costs because they punish any deviation from the standard operating procedure, and most cost-savings come from innovation.
In conclusion, the major media organizations know that nuance, subtlety, and complexity lack mass appeal and they make lots of money on mass appeal—just look at the dumbing down of television and the [attached] article as examples. Despite gaffe-prone portrayal by ham-fisted journalists, who delight in cunningly edited soundbites, Mr. Romney is an articulate and nuanced intellectual. He does not fit their paradigm, and that threatens them.
Mittens doesn't want to say "I'm running with Santorum", since everyone knows what "Santorum" means.