Rick Santorum says Senator John McCain is dangerous for Republicans

By Spiral Posted in Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Former Pennsylvania US Senator Rick Santorum was on the Mark Levin radio talk show recently. He was asked about the candidacy of John McCain. You can hear Mark Levin's interview with Rick Santorum by clicking here.

Rick Santorum says that John McCain is dangerous for Republicans. Clearly, if you listen to the interview, Rick Santorum reflects back on when he was part of the Republican leadership and how frustrated he was when time after time McCain sided with the Democrats on key issues. He specifically mentions that if McCain had voted with the Republican on drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve, we would have won that battle. But McCain didn't so we didn't.

It's a good interview. Please listen.


Gee if I needed more reasons to quit worrying about McCain, nothing like the anti-endorsement of someone of such dubious views of ethics as Rick "Where do I actually live" Santorum.

The very same boob that wanted to outlaw the national weather service from distributing weather reports because one of his campaign contributors was trying to enter the business.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

My question would be, why should the government be in the buisness of providing a taxpayer-funded service that competes with private business? Why should we pay for that?

And as for where he lived, maybe it's nice that some Senators are wealthy and can keep their families in another state the entire time they spend in Washington, but the fact that he and his spent a lot of itme together in Washington, leaving the Pennsylvania home vacant at times, shouldn't be held against him.

Should he have been a poorer father just because he's not a millionaire?

HTML Help for Red Staters


Go into the way back machine and review the whole Rick Santorum foolishness.

The National Weather Service has a duty to produce weather information for government agencies, we the tax payer fund the bill for this service. Santorum was pushing a bill that would have forbid the Federal government from releasing data that we the tax payers made possible. Why? Because some Fat Cat contributor to his campaign was trying to launch a competing service. A totally stupid and of questionable ethics bill.

On the issue of his house. Santorum listed some small house that he and his family NEVER lived in as his home. He then went on to hit up the local school district for funds to home school his children, in his Virgina home I would assume.

Say what you want about Senator Santorum on other issues, but on ethics he was a typical Washington DC a**clown, and not a very clever one at that.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I have to agree with Neil. Govt should get un-involved when it comes to the private sector. If someone wanted to make money on it, then the govt should stop funding something the private sector wants to do (don't start up a lame military argument. We both know that is different) and save us taxpayers the burden. This would be just like any major netork asking PBS to stop showing reruns of something they wanted to air. We aren't talking about past data already paid for by the tax payers, we are talking about current and future data that they want to make money on.

So, his comments carry a lot of weight. You can't just dismiss his comments by throwing mud at him without any links to any articles supporting your views that he was unethical.

Here's one article on his, shall we say rather unique living arrangements and attachment to his home district?


And here's you one on his dumb weather bill. Yes it's Slate, and therefore there is a bias, but the article pretty well spells out the idiot like nature of Santorum's bill.


I'm not a PA voter, but I cried no tears when he lost his run for office.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I have not read up on the Weather service issue, but as to his housing scandal, I don't find anything particularly wrong with what he did.

He was a man who wanted (1) to continue to be close to his family and (2) to serve in the United States Senate.

Because Congress is in session much longer than it should be, a Senator must spend the vast majority of his or her time working in Washington, D.C., while at the same time retaining a formal residence in the state he's representing (as required by Article I of the Const.). Such persons must then retain two places to live (unless they're senators from MD or VA)--or they are effectively single and sleep in their D.C. office (a la Dick Armey).

So he had a decent-sized house in the D.C. area, and a small formal residence in PA.

The "scandal" seems to consist in the fact that he not only payed taxes on the house in PA, but--lo and behold--he undertook to enjoy the benefits of residence therein. No scandal at all.

I admit that what IS scandalous is that the "residence" of members of Congress in their home states and districts must be for many only a formal residence, given the excessive length of sessions of Congress.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

A Texan

Santorum had a residence in name only in PA, lets not kid here. Let's not also kid that he would have been shredded to pieces if not for his "pro-life" credentials, well may throw in some anti-gay bones too.

Yea sure he represents a segment of the party, but fiscal or other segments, no way.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Seriously, if you gotta retain two houses, and you make 157K/year, do you have to keep two big ones? 157K/year was and is a great salary for most Americans, but not if you're trying to raise a huge family close to D.C.--and retain a formal residence somewhere else.

Agreed, that a NECESSARY condition of his political success in PA was his pro-life stance, as well as his stand for traditional marriage (which is what I suspect you mean by "anti-gay"). But it was not a SUFFICIENT condition.

Come to think of it, it is the embrace of social conservativsm that has been a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT condition for the success of the Republican Party on a national scale.

As to his not representing other parts of the party--I'm surprised. Was he a big tax-raiser? Was he a big spender? (Here I wouldn't be surprised--like the majority of Republicans, alas)? Was he not on the side of national-security conservatives? Gosh, the main focus of his last campaign was his aggressive stance in the war on terror.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

I think very highly of Santorum but I never like anyone telling me how and why I should think.

Rick Santorum isn't telling you how to think, just sharing his experience being a US Senator for 12 years while McCain was a US Senator.

Most of us don't have that level of familiarity with McCain, only what we see when he knows he is posing for the cameras. Santorum shared what he saw when the cameras and microphones were not there.


You must have been living in a cave for a very long time if you can with a strait face say "Most of us don't have that level of familiarity with McCain, only what we see when he knows he is posing for the cameras. Santorum shared what he saw when the cameras and microphones were not there."

One thing about McCain, he is what he is, on and off camera. To pretend that the rest of us don't know McCain is just silly, and yes he pisses off a lot of the party, that's part of who he is.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

What would be really shocking would be to hear that McCain was earnestly pleading for support for pro-life legislation behind the scenes.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Suddenly he stops touting his record when we start having primaries. McCain-Feingold, -Lieberman, -Kennedy, Gang of 14... all this seems to disappeer. It's not who he is that bothers me, it's how much it hurts the movement. He ain't much better in my book than Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.

Exactly right. The only explaination for a McCain nomination is amnesia among Republican primary voters. Or wishful thinking like "McCain only voted against the Bush tax cuts because they weren't paired with spending cuts" or "McCain sided with the Democrats on judicial filibusters of conservative judicial nominees because McCain wants the option of filibustering liberal judicial nominees."

It's wishful thinking (and McCain loves to blow smoke in the faces of Republicans on these issues) because:

McCain didn't offer an amendment to the Bush tax cuts so that the legislation would include spending restraint. He simply voted with the Democrats on amendments designed to kill the tax cuts and allow the economy to remain mired in recession. Hint: A recession while Bush was president would have helped Democrats defeat Bush and other Republicans.

McCain never filibustered a single Clinton judicial nominee during Clinton's 8 years as president. But, yep, when the Democrats filibustered Bush's nominees, McCain rushed in front of the cameras to defend, in principle, the right of Democrats to filibuster. McCain indicated that the "problem" was Bush was nominating judicial candidates unacceptable to Democrats.

Hello? Earth to McCain. We the Republicans won the 2004 presidential election. We the Republicans increased our majority in the US Senate from 51-49 to 55-45.

I'm not sure if McCainiacs are the same people that complain about things like "pro-life purity" but there might be something there. I've heard complaints from many about how I as a pro-lifer shouldn't demmand purity in my candidate/law and should opt for a practical step forward (things like reducing the number of abortions instead of voting for something "impossible" like outlawing all abortions). I'm curious if McCain isn't being defended by purists as well? Just listen to how these two sound: "I won't vote for less abortions since it doesn't stop all abortions" and "I won't vote for tax cuts without spending cuts".... I need time to formulate my thoughts here and come up with better comparisons but there is definitely something there. Thanks. Maybe I'll write up something on this hypocrisy/foolishness.

Politics is the art of the possible. But if you listen to Rick Santorum in this interview you get the sense that what should be possible isn't always possible when you need McCain's vote.

Quite often we Republicans looked at the "Republican era" (when we held the US House, the US Senate and the White House) with dismay. We thought, "Why can't we accomplish what we campaigned on? We won the election. What's going on?"

When you have a majority Republican Senate, this sounds like a majority that should be able to get judicial nominees like Miguel Estrata on to the federal court of appeals. But if that Senate majority is built on flaky Republicans like John McCain and Lincoln Chafee, it turns out that such assumptions are wrong.

Did you listen to that portion of Santorum's interview where he said if we could have received McCain's vote on the Artic National Wildlife Reserve we would have won that legislative battle?

That's what never made sense to me. We had a 55 to 45 seat majority in the US Senate? Why can't we run the senate the way the Democrats did when they had a big majority during the first two years of the Clinton presidency (1993-1994).

When Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, did you hear of any debate about whether or not the Ginsberg or Breyer nominations represented an "extraordinary circumstance" under which a judicial filibuster would be considered justified?

Nope. McCain didn't only not filibuster those nominations by Clinton. He voted for Ginsberg and Breyer. But when the Democrats filibustered Bush's nominees and Republicans wanted to end the Democrats' right to filibuster judicial nominees, McCain said, "I might want to filibuster a liberal nominee if a Democrat is president."

I'm just asking, Should conservatives take McCain's soothing rhetoric seriously? Or should we realize that he's playing us for fools? I think those questions answer themselves.

Old McCain vs New McCain hurts my head. He looks so bad when you actually look at his record.

My impression of McCain that he has been neither a fair-weather nor a foul-weather friend of social conservatives. He half-talks the talk and half-walks the walk.

He'll say he's pro-life when asked, but can also be counted on to say things like "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned, agents of intolerance, and the like.

He'll vote the right way on some issues, vote the wrong way on others (FMA, embryonic stem-cell research), and NEVER be at the forefront in protecting the unborn or traditional marriage.

So when Santorum says that McCain typically resisted bringing to a vote measures dear to social conservatives, I'm not surprised.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service