The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Rick Santorum in Cavuto Interview: ‘This Is the Hatchet-Job of All Time’ (Video Added)

Posted on | March 23, 2012 | 114 Comments

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana
Rick Santorum says it is “absurd” for anyone to suggest he would not support the Republican Party’s nominee against President Obama.

“This is the hatchet-job of all time,” the former Pennsylvania senator told Neil Cavuto during an often-contentious Friday afternoon interview on Fox News about Santorum’s comments at a Thursday event in Texas. “I’ve said repeatedly the number-one priority is beating Barack Obama. I’d support anybody. They said, ‘Would you support Ron Paul?’ Of course, I’d support anybody on the Republican ticket and I’ve said it throughout the course of this campaign.”

Santorum blasted the controversy over his remarks during an appearance Thursday in San Antonio as “a made-up story.” During that Texas speech, Santorum reiterated his argument for offering a conservative alternative to Obama by saying that if Republicans nominate Mitt Romney, “we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future.” (Click here to see full quote and video of Santorum’s San Antonio comments.)

In his Friday interview with Cavuto, Santorum clarified that remark, saying said he has been “traveling around this country saying that the highest priority is to defeat Barack Obama, and what I was saying there is that, if we don’t have a choice, then the American public, y’know, may decide to keep Barack Obama. That’s all I said. I’ve said it in every speech.”

The latest polls show Santorum with a double-digit lead among Louisiana Republicans on the eve of Saturday’s primary here.

I will have more quotes from Santorum’s interview with Cavuto, and will add reaction to his interview and video as they become available.

UPDATE: Alex Alvarez at the liberal Mediaite blog headlines this, “Neil Cavuto Hammers Rick Santorum Over Obama/Romney Comparison,” and calls the interview “a shouting match.” Cavuto was (a) at the very least playing devil’s advocate or (b) possibly even pushing Romney talking points. But I repeat myself.

Anyway, here’s the video:

UPDATE II: Fox News calls this a “fiery interview” and, indeed, Cavuto’s viewers saw the fiery side of Rick Santorum. Clearly, he has gotten sick and tired of what’s been happening the past few weeks: Reporters playing journalistic “gotcha” games, knowing that if they can be the first to find two “controversial” sentences in an hour-long Santorum speech and turn it into a catchy headline, they’re guaranteed a Drudge link.

Let those of you who are not Santorum fans ask yourself this important question: What if you were in Rick Santorum’s shoes?

What if you had spent all those months criss-crossing Iowa in a pickup truck, speaking to small groups of Republican voters. Sometimes less than a half-dozen would show up, but Rick would give them the full treatment, as if they were the most powerful and influential Republicans in Iowa — and, as it turned out, they were: When push came to shove, after the Perry bandwagon ran into the ditch, after the Cain Train ran off the rails, after Newt imploded, all those voters Santorum had been shaking hands with said to themselves, “You know something? We ought to vote for Rick. He’s earned it.”

And he earned it when nobody believed he could do it, when all he had was determination in the face of relentless discouragement.

Santorum didn’t have big money. He didn’t have praise from big-name pundits. He didn’t have the GOP Establishment on his side, and the major media gave him quite nearly zero coverage. But he kept plugging away — “Steady Eddie,” as he said — until he finally broke through.

So he did all that, campaigning for nearly a year, and now that he’s the leading rival to Mr. Inevitable, what kind of coverage does he get? “Gotcha”!

And too many conservatives, who should be defending Santorum against these attacks, are instead playing along with the media “gotcha” game, ready to throw Santorum under the Romney bus.

Let me tell you something: I remember when Charles Johnson tried to throw Pamela Geller under the wheels of his Little Green Bus, and I stood up and said not just no, but hell, no.

Maybe Rick Santorum’s not your favorite candidate. Maybe Pamela Geller’s not your favorite blogger. Maybe Rush Limbaugh’s not your favorite talk-radio host, but conservatives can’t let liberals tell us who our friends are.

Don’t let liberals tell you what to think. Don’t play along with the “gotcha” game. Don’t help them defame people’s reputations.

By God, REMEMBER BREITBART!

Update III (Smitty): thank you, Instapundit! I think Stacy may be in need of encouragement down in the Big Easy.

Update IV (Smitty): linked by CrackMC in a long meditation with quite a few interesting images and thoughts. Have to re-read that one.

Comments

114 Responses to “Rick Santorum in Cavuto Interview: ‘This Is the Hatchet-Job of All Time’ (Video Added)”

  1. Garym
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 10:58 pm

    Holy Cow!! The Mittbots are flooding over from Hot Air even.

  2. pabarge
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:05 pm

    Stacy,
    Santorum sucks and you suck even worse.

    Bend over, grab an ankle with one hand and try to find a shred of credibility for yourself wjith the other.

    Mutt.

  3. smitty
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:15 pm

    When you disparage the people in a content-free way like this, it has the effect of a double negative.
    Because you are not anonymous, I’ll fall short of marking you mumbling as spam.
    However, you stand admonished to offer something more of a positive argument if you want to disagree.
    I’m really not interested in censorship, Mutt.

  4. ThePaganTemple
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:15 pm

     Okay now let’s think about this for a minute. I recognize the reality that this thing is to all practical purposes over and decided. So that means I’ve got my head up my ass? Do you think maybe you should think about that for just a couple of minutes? You know, just in case you might be led to accidentally come to a different conclusion?

  5. smitty
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

    reality that this thing is to all practical purposes over and decided

    Then why the full court press from the Mitt-hedz on this, hm?

  6. BradleyBuck
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:33 pm

    Well said. These attacks on Santorum are despicable and ignorant. His meaning is clear if you look at the entrity of what he said and consider that he’s said all along that he’ll support the nominee. But no, we can’t do that. That would begin to resemble intellectual honesty.

  7. BradleyBuck
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

    The difference is that Romney’s explanation makes no sense. His aide was asked about how Romney’s conservative positions would affect him in the general, and the aide responded that you hit a recess button at that point. Romney says the aide was referring to the organization of the campaign, but he was clearly asked about his positions, not organization. You can’t expect something like that to go away just because you say so unless you have a good explanation for what you said. Santorum has one, while Romney doesn’t

  8. gloogle gloogle
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

     “liberal talking points” my ass. 

    i’m voting for Santorum if he wins the nomination.  But what he said was DUMB…

  9. Tennwriter
    March 23rd, 2012 @ 11:55 pm

    Brad,
    You need a guy who fights.  Like Lincoln said…send a case of whatever whiskey he drinks to my other generals.

  10. Bob Belvedere
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:00 am

    EBL: I have the highest respect for Mrs. Malkin, but, as she would admit, she’s not perfect.

    As for me being a ‘good egg’: thanks, but I must warn you I’m a slightly cracked one.

  11. Bob Belvedere
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:04 am

    Actually, Gary, their mouths were filled, IYKWIMAITYD.

  12. Confutus
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:14 am

    “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

    It’s evident that Santorum would like voters to believe Romney so inconsistent that he would completely change his poisitions for the general, and that Fehrnstrom was being unintentionally candid…but that’s not precisely clear from what he actually said.  The other interpretation,  that the general election will be different facing Obama and without Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul shooting at him from his own side seems the more reasonable interpretiation.

  13. Dan
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:20 am

    Uhh, that sob story you just provided about Santorum working soooo hard and then subjected to ‘gotcha’ politics could be applied to all the candidates in the primary. Santorum didn’t seem to have a problem piling on when the media ‘gotcha’ frenzy turned its attention to Romney’s advisor using etch-a-sketch as an analogy for the pivot that every presidential primary candidate makes when turning to the general election. No, embittered Santorum is looking real presidential out there playing with a children’s toy and essentially telling his supporters that they should vote for Obama or stay home rather than support Romney if he is the nominee.

  14. daialanye
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:24 am

    Superlative reasoning by Nopefull –go for the robotic moderate because the conservative candidate is less inspirational than Reagan.
     
    But what would Reagan do,huh? Would he forever rehash the Spector matter, which Santorum has, in fact, justified, if not to Nopefull’s satisfaction?
     
    I’m willing to overlook Spector, just as I’m willing to overlook Sandra Day O’Connor. Even the best of them can’t always get it right. But that’s no excuse for clownishly backing a candidate like Mitt, who can be expected to get it wrong time after time.

  15. DKWalser
    March 24th, 2012 @ 1:41 am

     BB,

    With all due respect, that’s BS on steroids.

    Virtually everyone who reported on Santorum’s remarks understood him to have meant that Romney was no different than Obama and that Santorum would prefer an Obama second term to a Romney presidency.  Santorum’s aide reinforced that view when he claimed that Romney and Obama were “mirror images” of each other (but, Santorum, would, of course, reluctantly, vote for Romney rather than Obama).  Later, Santorum claimed that he had been misunderstood.  He was only expressing the fear that others would conclude that Obama was preferable to Romney. 

    Fair enough.  None of us can read the hearts and minds of the principals, so we cannot know whether Santorum (or Romney’s aide) misspoke.  If Santorum expects others to accept that he merely expressed himself poorly, he should extend the same grace to Romney.  So should Santorum’s supporters.

    But, if you want to parse the differences between the two scenarios, keep in mind that in one the candidate was speaking and in the other the candidate was not.  Also keep in mind that Santorum has, on several occasions, said that there’s not much of a difference between Romney’s positions and Obama’s.  Given what Santorum has said the last few weeks, the next logical step for his rhetoric to take was that he’d just as well vote for Obama as Romney.  (Romney has consistently said that any of the Republican candidates would be infinitely preferable to Obama.) 

  16. Commentmnstr
    March 24th, 2012 @ 1:50 am

    It’s not Santorum misspeaking…it’s his whiny little bitch act with Cavuto that made me turn the corner on him. Away from him. He’s cracked under pressure. Not gaffed, cracked.

  17. smokedaddy
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:03 am

    I dunno, when I actually listened to the video with more than half a second of real thought, I heard what he was saying, using the all inclusive “we” to refer to independents and conservatives looking for a choice, not an echo. Unlike some, Santos does not substitute “we” for “I”. Rather, he uses “we” for the body politic at large. I thought he was excellent in the Cavuto interview. Ultimately I thought Cavuto was reasonably fair as well, tho it took him awhile and it took all of Santo’s fiery temperment to penetrate Neal’s FOX inspired narrative. Unfortunately, FOX’s anchors & hosts are falling into the Romney talking points, rather than engaging in any independent critical listening.

  18. Cheryl55
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:37 am

    Who are you kidding??? The words came right out of this MORONS mouth!! And he would have let it stand too, if there had not been such a backlash to it! How many times is he going to LIE about what he says? He says he would BAN birth control ….then he says well, I wouldnt’have said that…but the words came right out of his mouth. The guy is just plain pathetic…he and Romney both are so busy pandering that they forget PEOPLE do sometimes LISTEN, and RECORD!!!

  19. Cheryl55
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:40 am

    This was NO misunderstanding! READ what he said…he NOT only said it, he followed up with WHY he said it. This guy LIES out of every side of his mouth and FINALLY people are printing his LIES…they do tend to cause a stir in print.  The guy is a pathetic mess!

  20. Cheryl55
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:42 am

    Forget Santorum! Vote for the guy who CARES how much you will pay in taxes, for gas, for fuel oil, AND whether those like Santorum and Romney will have the gov’t running your life…that would be Speaker Gingrich!!!!

  21. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:50 am

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/139527/

    Instalanche over it.  

  22. Adjoran
    March 24th, 2012 @ 3:19 am

    At some point, reality has to set in for some of you – those who compare Santorum to Reagan or who believe Cavuto was unfair and unreasonable in that interview are in need of professional help – and realize the numbers are no longer arguable.  In the same poll showing Santorum ahead in LA by double digits, 75% of Republicans in the survey say they expect Romney to  be the nominee.  They aren’t supporting Santorum as a candidate – he’s a safe protest vote for those who WISH there was a qualified more conservative candidate in the race.

    Freedom Works this week dropped its opposition to Romney, and even stated that with a GOP Congress he could be “the most conservative President ever.”  Jim DeMint issued a strongly favorable statement about Romney – not a formal endorsement, but if he isn’t interested in dating the guy, it was pretty close.  And Jeb Bush spoke for the resolution of doubts from the dreaded “Establishment” of the party with his own endorsement.

    OVER.  DONE.  There is no reasonable path to the nomination for Santorum, and no reasonable path to a brokered convention, either.  Romney would have to be caught, as Governor Edwards of LA once said of his own prospects, “in bed with a live boy or a dead girl” to lose now.

    ALL continuing this charade accomplishes  is to make it harder to beat Obama.  Frankly, I think there are a number of Santorum supporters who secretly WANT Obama to win so they can whine that Romney was a weak candidate later.  Whining does seem to be their most refined skill.

    At this point, Santorum is only ruining his own (extremely slim) chances of future viability as a candidate.  He’s playing Huckabee – although Huckabee didn’t spend his time bashing McCain.  

  23. BradleyBuck
    March 24th, 2012 @ 4:02 am

    That’s not what I understood him to mean when I first read his statement. It seemed like since his main point was that Romney can’t win because voters need a clear choice that the statement “we’re better off with Obama” was from the perspective of the voters, not Santorum himself. Santorum has also said repeatedly that he’ll support the nominee. To me his meaning was pretty clear, and it just seems so ridiculous that we would think that any of these candidates other than Paul would come out and say they wouldn’t support the nominee. Santorum, whatever you may think of him isn’t stupid, and there just isn’t anyway he’d say something like that even if he believed it.

    I don’t see how you could claim that Romney’s aide misspoke. The question he was asked was clear enough, and it clearly dealt with Romney’s positions, not the structure of the campaign or anything like that. What else could he have meant that would name sense as an answer to that question? You could say that he wasn’t speaking for the campaign, and that Romney doesn’t share his views, but they don’t seem to have done that. Instead they’ve tried to say he wasn’t talking about the issues of the campaign, but that doesn’t fit the question he was asked. I honestly can’t see another way to understand what he meant.

    Romney has held positions which were similar to Obama’s. I don’t see how anyone can deny that. Maybe he’s changed his mind, but either way that’s a liability vs Obama. That’s the point that Santorum has been making all this time, that Romney is compromised on some central issues in this campaign and can’t beat Obama. He’s never suggested Romney isn’t better than Obama in some areas, only that he’s to liberal on some of the most important issues that will come up in this campaign to effectively debate Obama. It’s perfectly reasonable to view his comments in that light.

  24. I’m Getting Out Of Jail (After Being Put In A Position,…) »                      ? The Macho Response ?
    March 24th, 2012 @ 7:27 am

    […] Go on, scream “bigot” until you’re blue-in-the-face, but I know when I’m being railroaded, as well as I know the arguments in favor of electing Mittens are made of wet tissue. This is merely […]

  25. Rich Vail
    March 24th, 2012 @ 7:46 am

    By definition, politicians say stoopid shit…politicians under pressure of a failing campaign often say VERY stoopid shit.  I suspect that Mr. Santorum was a politician in a faltering campaign and having a temper, said some VERY STOOPID shit…

    Honestly, I haven’t really liked any of the candidates the GOP is fielding this year.  I would have preferred Paul Ryan myself, or Chris Christie, or just about anyone else other than those who have chosen to run.  None of them have run very good campaigns, with Romney being the worst of them all. 

    Rich Vail
    Pikesville, Maryland
    http://thevailspot.blogspot.com

  26. Gbp41
    March 24th, 2012 @ 8:21 am

    I would feel a lot more sympathy toward Santorum and his slip if he himself wasn’t make a HUGE issue about one comment made by a campaign aid (not even the candidate). 

  27. catorenasci
    March 24th, 2012 @ 9:07 am

    I listened to the  original clip of Santorum’s gaffe, and to his interview with Cavuto.  I’m admittedly not a Santorum fan, and I’m not really a Romney fan either.  My sense was that Santorum really did imply people might as well vote for Obama rather than Romney, and that Santorum’s attempt to justify himself not only didn’t wash, but made it worse because he came across more and more as a whiner.

    I don’t see Santorum as much of an American-style conservative, rather he seems to me more in the mode of a German Christian Socialist or Italian Christian Democrat – not really a conservative on liberty or economics, only on social issues.  I don’t see how any Tea Party supporter whose touchstones are individual liberty and fiscal conservatism could support Santorum

  28. Dexter Sucks – Television Show - Fox News: “It’s Over For Santorum” After Obama Over Romney Gaffe
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:07 am

    […] The Other McCain: Rick Santorum says it is “absurd” for anyone to suggest he would not support the Republican […]

  29. ThePaganTemple
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:38 am

     Smitty-

    Could it possibly be that the “Mitt-hedz” are defending their candidate just like Santorum’s supporters defend him when he is attacked?

  30. rosalie
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:40 am

    Anytime O was actually asked difficult questions, he got a little uppity and testy.  Can you imagine how bad he’d be if he were put through the third degree as Santorum was?

  31. Pathfinder's wife
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:42 am

    but…you’re really here to make the case for Romney…gotcha

    By the way folks: really digging the emphasis with the all caps; really gives weight to your arguements; the semi-breatheless tone is a  nice touch too.

  32. rosalie
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:43 am

    Romney is not a moderate.  He’s a liberal.  And Pat Toomey’s endorsing him, which isn’t surprising.  So Toomey is endorsing a liberal that he’s hoping will suddenly become a conservative. 

  33. rosalie
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:47 am

    Romney is an Obama Lite.  He’s not a Marxist though.  However, we’ll get to the same bigger government as with O only maybe a little slower.

  34. Pathfinder's wife
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:48 am

    You seem to have a real burr about the whole birth control/abortion thing.
    Why is that?  

  35. rosalie
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:50 am

    It’s ironic how you say that what Fehrnstrom said was not precisely clear from what he actually said, but with Santorum it’s different.

  36. Pathfinder's wife
    March 24th, 2012 @ 10:52 am

    Uhm, Romney’s own rhetoric when asked about the positions has (distressingly) confirmed the suspicion that he is indeed a wind sock and political whore who will say anything (and pick up any legislation) that he thinks will garner him favorables in the polls.

    That’s all well and good (though annoying and not productive) with a country that is relatively united and doing well.  At this time our country is none of those things.

  37. Nopefull
    March 24th, 2012 @ 11:09 am

    Liberals are not capitalists. Romney is a practicing, wildly successful capitalist and former CEO. Like Obama, what has Ricky run other than his mouth. Not sure just what Icky Ricky is other than a holier than thou hot head. Toomey understands we need successful capitalists, not ideologues, running our country.

  38. ThePaganTemple
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

     I have to take exception to that. Warren Buffet is a capitalist, would you call him a liberal or conservative? What about Jon Corzine?

  39. ThePaganTemple
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

     Frankly I just think its ignorant to make a political issue out of birth control, over and above objection to government subsidy of it. I especially find it objectionable to question the motives and the religiosity of those who practice it.

    Abortion I want thrown back to the decision of the states. Some people though will never be satisfied with repeal of Roe. They won’t be satisfied until abortion of any kind and for any reason is outlawed at the national level. And that’s where we part company.

  40. Nopefull
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

    There can be crooks that consider themselves as capitalists; both benefit from cronyism; Buffet is a trader who uses his political insider information to enrich his holdings; In addition to an insider trader, Corzine is a crook. A rational person would call them crony capitalists.

  41. Confutus
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:43 pm

    It’s that little “instead of” that creates the impression of a preference for Obama.  I’m willing to believe that Santorum misspoke, but it’s his own misspeak.

  42. Confutus
    March 24th, 2012 @ 12:50 pm

    Romney keeps saying he wants to cut back the size of government.  I believe he not only means it, but knows more about what it will take to do it (having done battle with Massachussets leftists)  than Santorum does. 

  43. Pathfinder's wife
    March 24th, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

    He didn’t so much make birth control (other than not making people pay for others’) a political issue as he did say he would speak his own personal feelings on the matter.
    Big difference — and honestly, it’s one that does tie into our fiscal problems because…you can’t have fiscal conservatism without social conservatism.  You can’t have a free society if people are willing to give away liberty for free stuff (which a lot of power brokers on the left and the right are more than happy to oblige).

    As for abortion: yes, it should go back to the states, but, if you happen to be like me and live in a state where a lot of residents are saddled with abortion laws gone wild, then there needs to be something in place whereby political machines (and the zombie voters in large urban areas that vote them in) don’t run roughshod over the will of the people in the majority of the state.
    Unfortunately, that’s what we’ve got — and simple, though well meaning, federalism is not going to fix that. It’s a recipe for a nightmare for those of us living out here in the back of beyond.

  44. Pathfinder's wife
    March 24th, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

    Then why won’t he disavow legislation and platforms that will do precisely the opposite?

    Now, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt — but only for so long.  He will not be president of just Massachusetts if he goes all the way, and he will be representing all the people — which means not just the sort of people that made up his base there.

    He has to be willing to disavow some things, and continue to do so…even if it costs him some negatives.  Character does count.

  45. Pathfinder's wife
    March 24th, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

    And what does an American style conservative look like?

    And I would love to see you extrapolate exactly, on what issues, Santorum is more in the mode of an SDP or CD member — and please, point to specifics.

  46. Liberals and Romney Share The Bunker « Best Social Program
    March 24th, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

    […] you believe that lunacy, you’re insane. Read Stacy McCain’s post to understand what Santorum ACTUALLY meant – which was that, if faced between Obama and an […]

  47. ThePaganTemple
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

     Sorry, that doesn’t wash. If Roe is repealed by the SCOTUS then it no longer is a federal issue. The matter will then be decided by the will of the voters in the states or by their legislatures. If you don’t like their decision, vote them out and try again.

    The judiciary won’t be able to interfere, because there would be no federal grounds to do so. I’m not saying its a perfect solution, but its the best you’re going to get. In most states, you can even decide the matter through the aegis of your state constitution. There will be some states that will probably maintain abortion rights and some that will outlaw them outright. Most will probably limit abortion to special circumstances, or to the first trimester.

    Where Rick screwed up was in slamming people who exercise birth control of their own initiative. He didn’t necessarily limit his remarks to those who use government subsidies, he insulted everybody who practiced birth control, most especially Protestant Christians. Granted, this was before he ran for President, but its out there and he’s stuck with it.

    Of course he could pull a Romney and say he’s changed his mind, but somehow I think that will go over about as good as his statement about “taking one for the team”.

    But all of this is beside the fact. This is going to be Romney’s year. I’m not happy about that, but I’m resigned to that reality. And part of the reason he’s got it in the bag as of now is Santorum flushed Ohio down the toilet with his intemperate remarks.

    If he pulls it out, of course I will gladly vote for him. But I don’t see it happening.

  48. ThePaganTemple
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

     That’s probably who I’m going to vote for in the Kentucky Primary (unless I decide to write in Palin), but I’m very much afraid its over for Newt.

  49. ThePaganTemple
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

     Actually Romney is the one who strikes me as being more in the mold of a European style “conservative” like the British “Conservative” Party. But alas, that is almost without a doubt our soon-to-be nominee.

  50. richard mcenroe
    March 24th, 2012 @ 2:13 pm

    @NewtGingrich: “I’m back on the couch with Nancy Pelosi!” Promises to work with Democrats in Tulane speech… http://tinyurl.com/842bgbm