MotherJones Blog: Rick Santorum, Back From the Grave to Slam John McCain

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Rick Santorum, Back From the Grave to Slam John McCain

I love when Republicans rip each other. And Rick Santorum just went on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and did nothing but rip John McCain the entire time. Enjoy.

HH: Why can’t John McCain win this election?

RS: 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.

More after the jump. Santorum's final message? The GOP is like a meat-lover at a San Francisco co-op grocery store. No good options.

HH: ...did you serve alongside Senator McCain for 12 years or longer?

RS: 12 years.

HH: So you know him well.

RS: I do.

HH: When you hear the media talking about him, and of course, he got Iraq right, and we’re all grateful for that, but he wasn’t the only Republican to get it right. Do you believe he’s sincerely changed on the immigration bill to where he understands the message that was delivered last summer?

RS: No.

HH: Why not?

RS: Well, I mean, because John McCain was the leader on the other side of the aisle. John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history, and that you know, this is important for his…because having come from Arizona, knowing the strength of the Hispanic community, that we were going to be seen as racists, and he wasn’t going be part of that, that he was not a racist, and that if we were for tougher borders, it was a racist thing. Look, John McCain looks at things through the eyes, on these kind of domestic policy issues, looks at it through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board, and accepts that predisposition that if you are not, if you stand for conservative principles, there’s some genetic defect.

HH: We’ve got about 30 seconds, Senator Santorum. Have you sensed today the conservative movement waking up to its peril?

RS: I guess my answer is yes, but I also…a lot of folks are throwing up their hands, not sure in what direction to go. That’s the problem.

HH: The direction’s toward Romney, isn’t it?

RS: I don’t know. I mean, I’ve got…I mean, I could have a whole long discussion on Romney and my concerns with him, too. So it’s not an easy call. Thompson and Romney are certainly the two most conservative candidates in the race. But they both have their problems, not as severe as the others, but they both have their problems.

Comments

Co-Ops have delicious steaks- just watch the CoOp episode of King of the Hill, as most republican voters probably have.

Posted by: Eh on 01/10/08 at 3:36 PM Respond

I don't know what more awful could be said about Senator McCain. Shame on him for behaving like a decent, caring, reponsible human being.

Posted by: Chuck Draves on 01/10/08 at 6:22 PM Respond

Santorum is a truly disgusting individual, regardless of how one feels about McCain and the rest of the repugnicans. Some have tried to associate his name with something disgusting just to make the point. Whatever you do, do NOT google these two terms together: santorum frothy.

However, if you get past the definition of the new term santorum, you'll find that spreadingsantorum.com does have details of the reasons for the creation of the new term.

Posted by: Misanthropic Scott on 01/11/08 at 4:15 AM Respond

A wise man once said... Death solves all problems, no man, no problem... same applies here, they will never "grow up" so the best thing to do is put a bullet in thier head, they are a problem and death is the solution.
America doesn't need gun control, it needs some bullet control. If bullets cost $5,000, there would be no collateral damage because if people saw someone get shot they would be like "Damn! He must pissed someone off really bad!"

"Damn, I would pop you in the head... if I could afford it... I'm going start saving, take a second job, maybe sell my car, then you're a dead man!"
The 2nd Ammendment is propped up so ridicuously it's a joke. Pro-gun advocates actually believe that when it was written, it applies to having machine guns and assault rifles and God knows what else to mow down dozens of people in seconds. They totally ignore that it was created when it took over a minute to load a gun just to fire a single shot, and opening the door to your home there was a good chance there was something out there ready to @#%$ you up. As far as I thought, the 2nd amendment only gave Americans the right to bear arms... I'm not sure why they would want bear arms... but if they want them... it doesn't say guns anywhere. Maybe the 2nd amendment was to legalise some kind of popular dish in the old days. I wonder how you would serve bear arms...

Maybe it they mispelt it and it was suppose to say bare arms, meaning that before then they weren't allowed to show their arms in public, thus the 2nd amendment gave the right to wear short sleved shirts.In England, where not even the cops are allowed to have guns, the average number of deaths resulting from handguns converges around... twenty people a year. Now, United States, and I believe we all know how THEY feel about guns... 25,000 deaths from handguns every year. However, there's no connection whatsoever.

There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone. There've been studies made that prove there's absolutely no connection, and you'd be a fool or a communist to make one.
Also, technically the 2nd amendment must also cover things like nuclear warheads and missiles. I just see some redneck going down k-mart and getting some uranium... sounds completely safe to me... that was funny in Bowling for Columbine when that redneck who had just put a loaded gun to his head, took the safety off and pulled the trigger (he hadn't clocked it), Then he had the nerve to say when they were talking about if buying nuclear weapons over the counter is covered the 2nd amendment "there are some nutcases out there".
the second amendmant was written in a time where your average joe needed a gun... the world changed and someone forgot to amend it.

i remember arguing with an older gentleman about the issue when our country finnally grew up a little and asked everyone to hand in their guns...

(and being a country founded on convicts we need them more than you)

i found it funny that he was under the impression that farmers with old 22 rifles were going to stop paratroopers in kevlar with fully automatic asault rifles...

guns = violence...

and if you disagree your an assclown.

try, just for a moment to imagine an america without guns...

how many skinny teenagers are going to start @#%$ with complete strangers without a gun. i love that i live in country where tough people are tough because they're tough, not becuase they carry a piece of equipment designed by some nerd to fight their battles for them...

i think america would benifite if they traded their guns in for swords...
swords are fun and kill people, that's a good trade off isn't it?

so rather than a bunch of inbread hicks running around killing people by just pointing at them, they actually have to do a few push ups before they can run someone through with a claymore.

i'm sure even charlton heston could appreciate that.

Posted by: Buddy Hinton Sturmgewehr on 01/12/08 at 2:38 PM Respond

The subject of a very wonderful and distinct

I thank you for continuing excellence

Thank you

Posted by: شباب ليبيا on 05/25/08 at 6:38 AM Respond