Political Pistachio: Santorum's Second Career

Friday, March 23, 2012

Santorum's Second Career

by JASmius

....as a slimy, excuse-spinning, blame-ducking dissembler is off to a really, really poor start:

On CNN's Starting Point, [Alice] Stewart defended the candidate's comments Thursday in which he said: "We might as well stay with what we have" in Obama, rather than elect Romney.
"What we have with Mitt Romney is... a mirror image of Barack Obama," Stewart said. "Both believe in government takeover of health care, cap and trade, big government spending, Wall Street bailout." ...
But later in the show, when pressed on how Santorum could support
Romney if he's saying he's the same as Obama, Stewart responded: "Rick has made it abundantly clear once a nominee is chosen he'll stand behind the nominee and do everything we can to replace Barack Obama."

Rick has made it abundantly clear once a nominee is chosen that believes in government takeover of health care, cap and trade, big government spending, and Wall Street bailouts, he'll stand behind the nominee and do everything we can to replace the president who believes in government takeover of healthcare, cap and trade, big government spending, and Wall Street bailouts. Which means, by logical inference, that Senator Santorum also believes in government takover of health care, cap and trade, big government spending, and Wall Street bailouts. Gotcha.

See how RS is trying to horn in on Joe Biden? It's genius, I tells ya, utter genius!

Or, perhaps....Governor Romney doesn't believe in government takeover of health care (at the federal level!), cap and trade, big government spending (like Santorum did as a senator), and Wall St...well, that was all Bush's fault anyway, right? Besides, nobody can ever accuse Mitt of being a Big Labor lackey like Senator Cleaver proudly was.

For a walkback to actually be a walkback, don't you actually have to move your feet?

Team SweaterVest continued this "We never said that but let us self-righteously reiterate it" dynamic in a statement to Hot Air:

"I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's. I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign's movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It's time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum - this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms." [emphasis added]

Sorry, Wally, but as your (evidently former) friend Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, words mean things - and have consequences. There's also this thing called logic (also a former friend of yours, evidently) which, if applied to the above huffing&puffing mea culpa, strips it bare like a pole dancer. To wit: Either (A) if you would never vote for False Messiah over any Republican, then you will (inevitably {snicker}) be backing the man you've publicly accused of being the Li'l President's ideological "mirror image", in which case you are part of that mirror image as well and thus no better than Plasticman; or (B) your high-falutin' "integrity" demands that if you truly believe there is no philosophical difference between Obama and Romney, then you won't vote at all and must encourage all Republicans to stay home on Election Day - which means that that "suggestion" is anything but "preposterous".

Did I mention that Ed Morrissey is a Santorumoid, and he read this the same way the rest of us did? Are we all on "the Romney campaign", now? Goodness gracious, I didn't know Mitt had won the coveted Vulcan endorsement, but there you go, I guess.

But, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Behold, my friends, the elderly, rumpled, rotund Occupier-cum-Reaganian 11th Commandment Apostle:

Interestingly, it's Gingrich who's made a bigger deal about this today than Romney. Statement one from Team Newt:
Newt 2012 Campaign Chairman Rep. Bob Walker released the following statement today criticizing Sen. Santorum's comments about the possibility of an Obama reelection:
"As a former Pennsylvania colleague of Rick Santorum in the Congress, I am stunned by his statement that if he is not the Republican nominee, we might be better off with the reelection of President Obama. An Obama reelection would assure full implementation of Obamacare, a
continuation of the assault on American energy production, more economic policies that destroy American jobs and the appointment of more radically leftist judges including perhaps to the Supreme Court. Whatever our differences inside the Republican primaries, no candidate should be suggesting that Barack Obama is a reasonable alternative."
And statement two, a letter to RNC chief Reince Priebus (slightly edited):
Republicans must not lose sight of our ultimate goal in 2012: defeating President Obama in November. While we may disagree on which candidate will be the strongest opponent to the President in the general election, we can agree that any of the current Republican candidates would be a better president than Barack Obama.
As chairman of the Republican National Committee, you are in a position to focus our candidates on this goal. I request that you issue a pledge asking all the Republican presidential candidates to support our eventual nominee. It is imperative that Republicans unite once the nomination process is complete in order to defeat President Obama. We cannot afford four more years of his leadership.

But only if they didn't used to run Bain Capital - right, Newt?

No wonder Ron Paul is calling Rick & The Fat Man "carnival barkers". And how horrifyingly pathetic has this debacle become that I'm forced to quote that crazy old bastard?

And how fitting that Governor Romney himself nails the perfect takeaway conclusion:

Well, I'm afraid Rick is confusing the nature of this race. This race is
not about one person. This is a race about the direction for the
country. The country is going in a very seriously wrong direction under President Obama. And I'm afraid that Rick increasingly thinks this race is about him. It's not about him. It's not about me. It's not about a personality. It's about the country. And I'm really disappointed in Rick's statement. Obviously, he endorsed me three years ago when I was running for president. He had no problem calling me a real conservative, a solid conservative. But now that he's in the race, it has become all about Rick. And that's just not right for the party, it's not right for the country.

Not too long ago I told my friend and blogcasting partner/broadcasting benefactor Doug Gibbs on the air at KCAA 1050 (the inland talk express, where no listener is left behind [TM]) that the reason Rick Santorum had become the last not-Romney GOP candidate standing was because he had stuck to issues and avoided the intramural personal sniping that had hacked every other "not-Romney" to shreds. In short, he was serious; he had gravitas; and that was (presumably) what Republican voters were looking for as an accompaniment to electability (which he lacks, which is why we're having this scintillating discussion).

Whatever gravitas Rick Santorum ever possessed has been utterly and completely pissed away by this tantrum, and he'll never get it back.

NOW do y'all see why Mitt Romney was and is "inevitable"?

UPDATE: The Santorum candidacy in a single picture: