Rick Santorum’s Endorsement of Romney Shows Hypocrisy of Both Men

As a blogger, I watched the Republican nomination challenge very closely. I also watched the fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 and I know it got a little dirty; Hillary ended up crying which broke my heart but also solidified my support for Barack Obama. I was originally a Hillary supporter because I have a great deal of respect to her. That respect is mostly because of how she held her head high during her husband’s impeachment trial, but, when she cried during her run for the presidency, she showed me that she was not yet ready for the White House. To me, a president should only cry for others but never for themselves.

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum just announced his endorsement of Republican nominee Mitt Romney. This of course was expected to happen as it’s a  tradition between candidates of the same party for the losers to endorse the winner but it also shouldn’t be, especially in this case.

The primary battle that went on between these two men included sharp attacks on character.  Attack ads meant to not just attack the other’s political positions and capabilities but also to discredit their honesty and integrity.

For instance; at a campaign stop in Texas, Rick Santorum said this of Mitt Romney:

“You win by giving people a choice; 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.”

Rick finished his statement with, “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.” By saying this, Mr. Santorum was suggesting we might as well keep Obama.

In a political mailer to Iowa residents a week after he quit the race, Rick Santorum also said this about Romney:

“It truly frightens me to think what’ll happen if Mitt Romney is the nominee,”

This was said by Santorum even after he gave up the race to be president. But now he endorses him, showing his loyalty I suppose to the party. As far as I’m concerned, if you put up an effort to send out a mailer, even after you’re no longer campaigning to be president, then that speaks volumes of your opposition, not your support of a candidate.

For Mitt Romney, he usually kept his campaign ads within the scope of Rick Santorum’s term in the Senate but it was when and how he used those ads that angered Mr. Santorum as it did the other candidates. As soon as Rick Santorum began gaining support, as he did the other candidates, Romney went on the attack and the super pacs supporting him joined in.

In a television ad put out by Santorum’s campaign, attacking Mitt Romney’s “negative attack machine” for its mudslinging at each candidate in the race. The ad shows a Romney look-alike carrying an assault rifle entering a warehouse. A pop up of Rick Santorum pops out and Romney keeps shooting the cut out but never manages to sling any mud on it.

The negativity between the two candidates was so thick throughout the campaign that you could cut it with a knife.

But now it’s time to try to win the White House and as far as Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Republican voters, it’s all about ousting Obama at all cost, even if it means endorsing and then electing a pure phony who has no core, which is what Santorum said concerning Mitt Romney in an interview on “CBS This Morning”.

Romney “is someone who doesn’t have a core. He has been on both sides of almost every single issue in the past ten years.” Rick Santorum declared.

Doesn’t sound like anyone I’d want to endorse, but that’s politics; isn’t it?

8 Responses to Rick Santorum’s Endorsement of Romney Shows Hypocrisy of Both Men

  1. avatar Timothy says:

    That’s nothing new. That’s like when Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama. You almost address that but don’t. Now we can talk about hypocrisy.

    • avatar fidlerten says:

      Timothy,
      I’ll give you that, I didn’t mention Hillary’s endorsement or Obama eventually making her Secretary of the State, but then; I only compared Obama and Hillary’s falling out to show that the vitriol never got quite as nasty between those two as it did with Romney and Santorum. I suppose the story could have added more.

  2. avatar Mr. Bab says:

    No, it’s not politics–it’s phony politicians who put party above substance and their country. I guarantee if Clinton was the nominee, Sen. Obama would have endorsed her.

    But one perennial candidate didn’t endorse McCain in 2008 and the same one will not endorse Romney next year.

    • avatar fidlerten says:

      Mr. Bab,
      You mean this year right? concerning your last sentence “…and the same one will not endorse Romney next year.” Because this year is the election.

      I suppose you’re referring to Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a good candidate compared to these other yahoos though he has some extreme positions on his agenda that are unacceptable by many. He’d never win because his kind of “no government at all” approach is very untried and probably would be a failure because those who couldn’t do it on their own would just be trampled under foot and discarded. Otherwise, Paul hasn’t explained what he would intend to do with those people who couldn’t take care of themselves; I suppose just blame them for their own troubles.

      The Libertarian approach reminds me of that movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio where all these people were enjoying this little private beach on this island without any government laws or regulations. That is until one of them got mauled by a shark and was laying their dying in terrible pain. They wouldn’t risk giving up their little private beach because of this man’s misfortune. So instead of finding help for him, and after getting tired of listening to him whaling in pain, they picked him up and dropped him off somewhere to die so that they wouldn’t have to listen to him anymore.

      Isn’t that just about how Libertarianism would work; just let everyone who finds misfortune because of some crisis just figure it out on their own? Need a doctor and got no money? Tough, you should of thought of that before you got ill. Can’t find a job and your family is hungry? Tough, should have saved more money when you were working. Oh what perfect freedom huh? You no longer have to care about your neighbor.

      • avatar Mr. Bab says:

        Fidlerten,

        Hahahah oh no. That is a big misunderstanding of the Libertarian philosophy. We want to be consistent with following the Constitution, especially the 10th amendment which grants power to the states that are not expressively authorized by the Constitution to the federal govt. We believe, and the Constitution says, the government should protect rights, liberties and properties of people. When 60-70% of the budget is directly against that, then the population will go crazy and proclaim “these are our rights” and the programs will rarely if ever be rolled back (most recently in ’96; weird, no one at catfood then).

        We cannot delegate rights to the govt that we didn’t initially have. If you steal from me and give to a homeless man, the act of stealing is still wrong and immoral. Furthermore, when the govt takes responsibility of every sector of public and private life, private orgs and individual are no longer needed for anything. An economic case can be made against govt intervention. But the Left (and sometimes Right) rarely considers economic effects of their programs–only emotional effects so they can be paraded as caretakers of the under-priveleged.

        The philosophy can be explained at length so we will continue this convo via email.

        • avatar fidlerten says:

          Mr Bab,
          The problem with your argument is what you mentioned:

          “then the population will go crazy and proclaim ‘these are our rights’

          What it always boils down to is what the People want or don’t want. You seem to want to force upon them the Constitution as though it is the Ten Commandments instead. The Constitution is what needs to be changed as the People have changed.

          You also want to give too much power to the states. What this does is allow the states to decide if a certain percentage of the population should be hungry or not or if they should have health care or not. And if they should allow gay marriage or not. This would also mean that gay married people who lived in other states couldn’t go to that state and have their marriage recognized. That’s not America; Americans should be able to travel anywhere they wish in these “United States” and have the same very freedoms and the same right to health care.

          I also know that social programs like Medicare and Social Security were created because of a need for them; states were not doing a good enough job and if they’re allowed to, some states will continue to not do a good enough job because that will force all the needy to move to other states that do and then the burden is cast upon those states, which in turn pressures them to also stop providing social programs. Before you know it, we’re stepping over dead bodies in the street because no state wants to provide health care, food or anything else to the masses who are without.

          We have a federal system to take care of needs so that everyone is treated equally throughout the land.

          .

          • avatar Mr. Bab says:

            Not the 10 commandments but if we wanna follow the rules, lets do it. Don’t pick and choose what part you wanna follow. The Constitution was created not to regulate society but to protect liberties, defense, etc.

            You don’t know my position on marriage obviously. Marriage predates government, so no level of govt should regulate marriage. And, to quell your worry, with states only controlling marriage, the full faith and credit clause guarantees other states will recognize gay marriages. “United.”

            States were not allowed to control entitlements upon their creation so there are no facts to back your comments. In 96 when we block granted welfare to states, people went back to work and Blacks especially benefited from the substantial reform. Though I was born in ’91, I don’t recall stepping over bodies; no, in fact, unemployment was low and families thrived! Remember, Blacks called him the first Black president!

            Hey, I thought this post was about presidential endorsements!? :)

    • avatar Timothy says:

      Which I think is interesting, because Santorum and Gingrich bloodied and attacked Romney more intensely than Paul did. And yet they endorse him…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: