What Santorum Said, What He Meant, and What Romneybots Want You to Think

Posted on | March 23, 2012 | 51 Comments

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana
I posted the video last night, but considering the reaction, let’s once more let everybody see for themselves what Rick Santorum said:

“Republicans and conservatives who are so worried about, you know, getting control back — ‘We have to win and so we have to nominate someone who can appeal to more’ — no, 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. If you’re going to be a little different, 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.”

Santorum was making the same argument Phyllis Schlafly made in her 1964 classic, A Choice Not an Echo. He is saying something he has said many times — and something Newt Gingrich has also said — that Romney fails to offer a clear contrast to Obama. In this context, when Santorum said “we might as well stay with what we have,” he clearly meant to express what the reaction of regular voters would be, if presented with someone who is just “a little different” than the incumbent.

Santorum did not express himself clearly, but awkwardness of expression is not the same as endorsing Barack Obama’s re-election.

The “Etch-a-Sketch” crew is claiming that Santorum actually said he would vote for Obama, thus prompting Santorum to issue a statement:

Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum made the following comment in reaction to the claim he would vote for President Obama.
Rick Santorum said: “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.”

UPDATE: Other conservatives are coming to Santorum’s defense, including Matt Lewis at The Daily Caller:

His argument is (and you can disagree with it) is that voters just might make the calculus that, if you’re going to have to settle for Obama Lite any way, you might as well stick with Obama.
… If you’re going to have to settle for RomneyCare, why not stick with ObamaCare?
(Note: I know Santorum said “we,” but I’ve heard the shtick enough times to know what he meant. And what he meant was that “we” — the voters — want a clearer contrast.)
Santorum has been making this argument for months. This is a regular line of attack.

(Hat-tip: Pundette via Smitty on Twitter.) Lewis notes that, when a candidate has been saying the same thing over and over for months — as presidential candidates must do in their stump speeches — they sometimes gaffes by attempting to improvise a fresh iteration of what is (to them) a familiar point.

Santorum probably didn’t realize what he had said (as opposed to what he meant to say) and didn’t recognize how it might be misinterpreted until after it blew up into a huge “controversy.” And, frankly, I believe, many voters wouldn’t disagree even with what he actually said: Why take a chance on Romney — a guy who has been on both sides of every major issue — rather than just muddle along with the status quo?

A lot of voters indeed think that way, and the “Roll Over for Romney” crowd — who want conservatives to stop resisting Mr. Inevitable — are likely to re-learn an unfortunately familiar lesson if Mitt is the nominee.

RECENTLY:

Category: Election 2012, Rick Santorum

Comments

51 Responses to “What Santorum Said, What He Meant, and What Romneybots Want You to Think”

James Z
March 23rd, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

I don’t think he was taken out of context at all, he’s saying we might as well stick with Obama.

This is coming from the guy that stated unequivocally that Romney was a conservative.

So Santorum was either a liar 4 years ago or he’s a liar now.

Get off the stage Santorum, you’re pathetic. you can’t win and you’re hurting the Party.
A Stephens
March 23rd, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

People say they want politicians who don’t offer pre-packaged pablum speeches and promises of a Unicorn in every pot but when we get one who speaks from the heart and off the cuff, these same folks immediately set out to parse every word in effort to make oppositional political hay. The more this happens the more the political class treats us like children, trying to guide our thought process rather than trusting us to make our own value judgments.

I wish RS hadn’t said it the way that he did, but I get what he was saying, I don’t need all the educated analysis to tell me what to think, or how to “feel” about it.

So, at the end of the day, I won’t not-vote for Romney if he’s the nominee, but I fully expect it won’t matter because if it is Mitt, Obama will slice and dice him like the chopped liver he is, and the very independents and squishy moderates everyone is fretting over will line up with Obama because Romney will have given them zero reason to vote FOR him.
Pathfinder's wife
March 23rd, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

Or they just won’t vote for either of them — in which case it will come down to which one carries the support of their base…
Jay Bienvenu
March 23rd, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

Given the way people are reacting to this, I’m embarrassed to call myself part of the online conservative movement today. This brouhaha is nothing more than bias, if not bigotry, coming out like pus out of a squeezed pimple.

I supported and voted for Romney in 2008 because, compared to John McCain, he was a conservative. Furthermore, he wasn’t vetted as well then as he is now. In 2012, I refuse to support Romney until he walks out of the GOP convention as the official nominee. Does that make me a hypocrite now?
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Santorum answers the “I’ll vote Obama” nonsense: » Datechguy's Blog
March 23rd, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

[…] sounds pretty direct to me, but what does Stacy McCain say: Santorum was making the same argument Phyllis Schlafly made in her 1964 classic, A Choice Not an […]
ThePaganTemple
March 23rd, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

Romney is going to be the nominee. That was pretty much determined with the outcome of the primary in Ohio, a state which borders Pennsylvania, is almost identical to it demographically, socially, and economically, and which Santorum should have won by a respectable margin.

Now Romney has more than half the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination, to say nothing of the fact that Romney has more delegates than all three of the others put together. Add to this state of affairs the current outlook in up-c0ming primaries, especially the winner-take-all states, and tell me which way you think the wind is blowing.

And no, what I am saying now is not my way to “Roll Over For Romney”. I’m just accepting reality. I stopped believing in Santa Clause at a very young age, and I never did believe in the fucking Easter Bunny.

Even if there was a brokered convention, what would that mean? Romney would still get the nomination so what the hell? Unless everything just goes to hell in a handbasket in Tampa and they end up nominating Sarah Palin, or Bachmann or Perry. Even then more than likely it would be a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush. Then what? More angst.

They sure as hell won’t nominate Santorum, or Gingrich, even if Gingrich pulls ahead of Santorum in delegates (which seems to be his current strategy).

It’s over. Let’s grow up, act like men and women, and move on.
Pathfinder's wife
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

If that’s the case (and it may be) then Mitt better get his butt out there and set his hair on fire courting the conservative base as well as getting in front of any attacks the Dems could possibly launch at him.

Or…rented mule time; here’s your collar and harness. (it’s already started this week — Axelrod is up to something in Utah…imhao of course).
ed
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

Color me unimpressed.

Romney is unimpressive because the guy has been running for President for about a decade now and evidently he still doesn’t have the whole “win the campaign” thing down yet. And some of his staffers are idiots that should have been weeded out already.

Santorum isn’t impressing me because I expect someone who is a professional politician and who has been a professional politician to have the basic skills of a professional politician. Such as the ability to form coherent sentences, logical thought processes and the possible talent to not shove a foot into his own mouth all the way up to the knee.
A Stephens
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

4 years ago there was no ObamaCare. That 1 simple fact changes everything.

For anyone believing that Obamacare, and the potential loss of individual liberty should it stand, is the overriding issue of the election as Santorum does, as I do, there is no problem in squaring the RS position of 4 years ago with his position today.

One may not agree with his position, that’s fine but it is openly, and unequivocally honest.
StrangernFiction
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

Ann Romney on the Romney’s bid for Senate in ’94:

“We didn’t know a single Republican when we jumped in in December.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ann-romney-we-didnt-know-single-republican

Yup, he’s severely conservative.
A Stephens
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

Nope. In my opinion that makes you an honest broker of your voting franchise, one who chooses to think critically, and for himself. Kudos.
just a conservative girl
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

The truth is this. It matters none what he meant. I know what he meant. But the soundbite is not going to portray that. Politics is perception. The perception is that he said that Romney and Obama are one and the same. True in many ways.

It is also true that Santorum took Romney’s aide comment out of context as well. A general election campaign is different than a primary. Anyone that has worked on one can tell you that. You hone your message differently. It is geared towards people who don’t pay as close attention to politics as political junkies like the people who read this site.

Do I think he meant people should vote for Obama? No. But that is how it will be played in middle America. There is little that can be done about that.

Not fair, but true.

The DNC will be creating an ad for the general in 3…2….1
Adjoran
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

What a complete hypocrite!

You didn’t mind jumping all over the poor choice of words of a Romney staffer – whom you said you know, even – but taking Santorum at his clear and unmistakable meaning requires “context?”

At this point, you have to know all you are doing is helping Obama. Just like you did last time.

Next time you feel the need to call someone a RINO traitor, just look in the mirror.
ThePaganTemple
March 23rd, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

I didn’t say I was happy about it. Then again when Palin decided not to run, that did it for whatever enthusiasm I had. I did get behind Bachmann because as far as I was concerned, and still am, she’s the only actual conservative ever in the race from the standpoint of the three legs on the stool school of Republican conservatism. National security, social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism. She was also the closest thing to a federalist in the race before Perry got in, which is something Santorum most definitely is not. Sorry, but to me if you’re not a Federalist, your conservatism is milquetoast conservatism at best. But she still didn’t work out because people went nuts over some minor missteps she made too.

That’s the problem, we’ve been insisting on utter perfection, but all too willing to settle on somebody who’s anything but.

I got behind Newt then, even though I never completely trusted him, because I thought he had the drive and inclination to take it to Obama, and to the media, with no holds barred.

Oh but he faw down and had a few boo-boos back in the nineties, so he just wouldn’t do either.

Now what are we left with? A guy who’s obsessed with contraception who could use a good dental dam when he opens his mouth. I’m telling you this guy is starting to make Rick Perry look and, worse, sound like Cicero.

I’m just done with the shit. At least Romney gives lip service to Federalism, which Santorum doesn’t, and which means a hell of a lot to me.
sheryl
March 23rd, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

I completely agree with you A Stephens. I supported Romney in 2008 over McCain. Obamacare has changed everything for me. I am appalled to think that the republican party is poised to nominate a candidate who is the founder for government regulated insurance. It blows the mind. For me personally, a vote in the ballot box between Obama and Romney is virtually the same in that neither represent me or my views.
James Z
March 23rd, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

What a stupid response.

So Santorum was fine with everything Romney did as Governor, and even went to great lengths to endorse him, but because Obama mangled health care suddenly not only is Mitt not a conservative but America would be better off with 4 more years of Obama?

The Santorum apologists are an embarrassment.
ThomasD
March 23rd, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

Say whatever you want about Santorum publicly noting what everyone else has already discussed about Romney being a Taxachussets RINO version of Obama, at least it has prompted Insty to reveal himself as fully in the tank for Willard.
A Stephens
March 23rd, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

I get what you’re saying here, but it does beg the question, -who exactly, is Romney’s base?
Charles
March 23rd, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

I score this as Eric Fehrnstrom stikes again via The Looking Spoon who has the only Etch A Sketch you need to worry about.

http://www.thelookingspoon.com/index.php/3279-the-only-etch-a-sketch-america-needs-to-worry-about
A Stephens
March 23rd, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

Romney will have little to no standing for campaigning against an ObamaCare policy that was/is largely drawn from RomneyCare.

Again, you may not agree with the premise but it’s pretty simple, clear, and justifiable on its face.

Labeling that which you evidently can’t comprehend as “stupid” only points out the lack of reason, clarity, and intelligence of your own critical thought process.

And again, as I’ve stated previously, you’re problem is not with me or other true conservatives. We’ll vote for your tool of a candidate. Your/his problem is going to be that he gets his ass kicked with mods/indies who will run from his carcass once Obama-Axelrod-the DNC- & the establishment media start the bloodletting.

Unbelievable that you could learn nothing from 08, 010.
rosalie
March 23rd, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

They’re trying their best to make it seem as though he’s obsessed with contraception. He’s only interested in it when it comes to the mandate.
Santorum: ‘This Is the Hatchet-Job of All Time’ : The Other McCain
March 23rd, 2012 @ 4:51 pm

[…] 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 […]
Tennwriter
March 23rd, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

Really PT, Rosalie is right. You know I would have been fine with Bachmann (still would be for that matter), and I was okay with Gingrich in part because of your arguement about ego, and I thought he would remember who brought him to the dance.

But I’m thinking its about time to draw the line with Romney. Santorum is a conservative….Romney is ??????
Tennwriter
March 23rd, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

I’m getting okay with calling myself that. I’m getting to the point where I’m thinking about not calling myself a Republican anymore.

If being Republican means ‘no Conservative need apply’ then I might as well not disgrace myself by voting for them.

I’ve said it before to Romney supporters, indeed to you. If you want a R prez next time, you need to support Santorum.

No doubt you say ‘but why should I deal with you when you’re not willing to play fair with me’….and Adjoran, if it was just people like you, then I would not be here. But for many of the Romneyacs, hearing them protest about party loyalty is like being a faithful wife and listening to your philandering husband get jealous because some guy smiled at you. The Romneyacs do NOT get to lecture me about party loyalty.
Tennwriter
March 23rd, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

The so called libertarians hate conservatism more than they love liberty.
ThePaganTemple
March 23rd, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

Like I said, I’m not happy about it either, but Romney’s going to be the nominee, barring some earth-shaking unforeseeable event that would probably be so drastic none of us would want to see it happen.

As for what Santorum really feels about contraception, he’s the one who said protestants who practice birth control aren’t real Christians. It’s hard to walk back a statement like that, especially since it was made quite a few years ago.

I cut him a little slack over his alleged statement that Obama would be preferable to Romney and take him at his word he was just drawing out the need for contrast between Obama and the GOP nominee. But he has a way of putting things that invite controversy and misinterpretation. You can’t blame Romney for politicizing it any more than you can blame Santorum for politicizing the Romney aid’s ignorant Etch-A-Sketch statement.

But all of these distractions aside, the truly relevant point is-its all over but the crying. You fought the good fight, but there comes a time to cut your losses. I want to beat Obama. I would much prefer doing so with a candidate other than Romney. But you know the old saying-you have to play with the cards you’ve been dealt.
ThePaganTemple
March 23rd, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

That all depends on what kind of and whose conservatism you’re talking about, and even more importantly, how and by whom its applied. Libertarians want drastic reductions in the size and scope of the federal government and tend to believe in a Federalist approach to the Constitution whenever possible and practical. We don’t want government intruding in our lives, and it doesn’t make any difference whether that government is liberal or allegedly conservative. And we damn sure don’t want to be ruled by the Morality Police any more than we want to be controlled by the PC thought police. Hope that clears that up.
Bob Belvedere
March 23rd, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

AS: Methinks this is the same pro-Willard troll that’s been showing up in every Election 2012 thread here lately. I’ve noticed similarties in phrasing. Either that or it’s a set of Mittbots with the same e-mailed talking points in front of them as they type.
Bob Belvedere
March 23rd, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

Sorry AS, but there’s only one pile of chopped liver around here.
Bob Belvedere
March 23rd, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

People who wear flip-flops and concealer make-up.
Bob Belvedere
March 23rd, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

Not at all. Well put.
Bob Belvedere
March 23rd, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

Now what are we left with? A guy who’s obsessed with contraception who could use a good dental dam when he opens his mouth.

So, TPT, you’ve bought into and support the Leftist / GOP Establishment Narrative on this.

Andrew Breitbart would be proud of you /sarc.
Bob Belvedere
March 23rd, 2012 @ 7:33 pm

I think one of the main reasons why Mr. Reynolds had his little bout of Hysteria was because deep down capital ‘L’ Libertarians [ie: the ideological ones] despise religion and the people who believe in it.
ThePaganTemple
March 23rd, 2012 @ 9:22 pm

Did he or did he not say Protestants who use birth control are not true Christians? I suspect that’s in large part why he lost Ohio.

As for Breitbart, he struck me as a guy who cared more about the truth than in promoting, or defending, any particular candidate.
ThePaganTemple
March 23rd, 2012 @ 9:28 pm

Despise religion and the people who believe in it, or just those who might abuse it, especially through government? There’s a big difference there. I might be wrong here, but I don’t know of any libertarians who object to religion in the public square, although they might object (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) to what they might perceive as government subsidy of it.
gloogle gloogle
March 23rd, 2012 @ 10:08 pm

This whole hing is about Rick opening his mouth and putting his foot in it. Period. If by some chance Rick gets the nomination, of course I vote for him. But Rick, you can’t keep saying dumb stuff and expect to win. That last mistake was a REALLY STUPID mistake. REALLY STUPID.
A Stephens
March 23rd, 2012 @ 10:27 pm

Yeah, I agree it smells like canned batshit from here.
Tennwriter
March 24th, 2012 @ 12:14 am

Conservatives want drastic reductions, and federalism too. Don’t like gov’t intrusion either.

But Libertarians ignore Reality. I think a nice little comparison of dictators might clear things up.

On the Right–Pinochet. On the Left-Mao.

Libertarian ‘thought’ (actually prejudgice) says they are equal.

Pinochet killed about 5000 of the Dissappeared. I suspect a lot of them were commie scum who were rebelling, and had to be dealt with somehow. But lets assume they were all innocent well-intentioned folk. Five thousand.

Mao killed about 50,000,000 in the Cultural Revolution.

So, the worst of the Left and the worst of the Right, and the Left is about five orders of magnitude more nasty.

This carries over. Supposing for some bizarre reason, we actually did get Christian Dominionists to run the USA, and they were not immediately run out of town by all the Baptists….it would probably be at least three and maybe four orders of magnitude less vicious and imposing of morality than the Daily Kos Dictatorship.

So when a libertarian starts talking about how the Right is some great and terrible threat to liberty, we run aground on some hard facts.

I could point out some more….a very bright friend of mine says there is no reason to fear a Baptist pogrom….because they couldn’t get organized enough to run a good one.

So yeah, libertarians deliberately blind themself to reality because they hate conservatives more than they love liberty.
Tennwriter
March 24th, 2012 @ 12:15 am

Sorry man, but we’re all capable of self-delusion, libertarians included. They think they are so pure and wise, but not so.
Pathfinder's wife
March 24th, 2012 @ 1:12 am

Well I know who his base is supposed to be (but who it really is no, you got me there).
Pathfinder's wife
March 24th, 2012 @ 1:15 am

I don’t consider the “it’s at the state level” for the healthcare mandate exactly a ringing defense of federalism — at least I don’t think that’s how the founders considered it.
Pathfinder's wife
March 24th, 2012 @ 1:27 am

Yeah, and the libertarians have gotten infected with a bunch of people who just want to be able to own AKs to parade around with, watch all the porn they want (probably even little girlies because they are so cute), smoke pot, and be able to buy booze whenever they want to. They want their candy, they want it now, and they want the whole bag…and some of them even believe it should be given to them at cost if not for free, because hey, liberty and everyone has a right to freedom. Oh, and not pay any taxes whatsoever (and still be able to have an interstate system and all the bennies, maybe no speed limits); oh, and forget about joining in the military or any community charity — liberty man, that’s imposing on their precious freedom (but they sure like having other people do it).

They don’t give a rat’s behind about real liberty; they don’t even care enough about it to understand what it really is and how to go about getting it.

Thanks to them the libertarian movement, the libertarian party, and right now the libertarian brand is starting to rot from the inside out (and the stink is beginning to get noticeable).
BradleyBuck
March 24th, 2012 @ 4:25 am

I’ve had similar thoughts. It feels like they’re just repeating stuff sometimes.
BradleyBuck
March 24th, 2012 @ 4:35 am

I’ll probably vote for Romney, but it’s a mistake to assume all conservatives will. Romney is ticking off a lot of people in this primary, and he may not be able to win them back. People are fed up with the GOP, and Romney is making that worse.
ThePaganTemple
March 24th, 2012 @ 10:22 am

That’s an interesting comparison, but would Pinochet really qualify as a conservative if he were a politician here? I tend to doubt it. A lot of politicians in other countries who call themselves conservative, like in Britain, are in reality anything but conservative, at least according to the way we define the term here.

To me, “conservative dictator” is a gross, almost an obscene contradiction in terms.
ThePaganTemple
March 24th, 2012 @ 10:25 am

Now imagine you were reading that statement only it was from a libertarian aimed at Christian conservatives as a group. How would you feel about that?
ThePaganTemple
March 24th, 2012 @ 10:31 am

Just so you’ll know I don’t agree with the libertarians on everything (especially not the Libertarian Party) but they are an important component of the Republican Party, every bit as important as the social conservatives and national security conservatives. Without them the Republican Party would over time become just another statist party of national defense hawks who go to church.
Pathfinder's wife
March 24th, 2012 @ 11:06 am

True libertarians, who are capable of actually thinking things through, yes. Just like thoughtful socons. Because they can see beyond their personal wants and realize that in life one cannot have everything one’s own way and thus know how to find common ground and when and where it might be wise to compromise.

The trouble is that the reactionary, unthoughtful, lemminglike ones seem to be hogging the mike and thus setting the tone.

And believe me, totalitarians love them…because it is those people that deliver up everything to totalitarians — one way or another.
LOUISIANA PRIMARY RESULTS HQ: Santorum Declared Winner : The Other McCain
March 24th, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

[…] Vanuatu; New Poll Shows Rick Santorum Headed for ‘Commanding Win’ in Louisiana PrimaryMarch 23: What Santorum Said, What He Meant, and What Romneybots Want You to ThinkMarch 23: It’s Past Midnight in Louisiana, and We’re Already Knee-Deep in CrazinessMarch 22: […]
BizzyBlog
March 25th, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

[…] Santorum said was a clearly conditional statement (full context and here): “If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have […]