« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Santorum now TRASHES candidates he SUPPORTED in September

By: Pete (Diary)  |  December 7th, 2010 at 01:58 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

 

Will the real Rick Santorum please stand up?

BEFORE the November 2, election, Rick Santorum defended Christine O’Donnell in her US Senate race in Delaware (though trying to have it both ways to some extent).

Now, AFTER the election, Rick Santroum is now trying to jump on the bandwagon and attack the GOP’s losing candidates.  Goal:  NOT win elections, NOT learn how to win elections, but simply for personal aggrandizement by Rick Santorum.

________________________________________________

On September 21, 2010, Rick Santorum defended Christine O’Donnell as a candidate  on Greta Van Sustren’s “On the Record” Rick Santorum

Santorum — famous for dumping Pat Toomey overboard in 2006 in favor of Arlen Specter — was clearly trying to have it both ways in Greta Van Sustren’s interview.  But pressed by Greta,  Rick Santorum was forced to line up behind Christine O’Donnell shortly after Christine O’Donnell’s September 14, 2010, primary victory.



RICK SANTORUM SAID ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2010:

o       Santorum started to praise Christine O’Donnell’s qualifications and abilities saying “LOOK, I’VE KNOWN CHRISTINE O’DONNELL FOR YEARS…” (before Greta interrupted) clearly with a tone of praising Christine’s abilities and qualifications.

o      Santorum said that Christine’s challenge in the US Senate race in Delaware was:

“So, the question is whether Christine O’Donnell  in a very compressed window — Sharon Angle had  MONTHS, Christine O’Donnell has WEEKS — can she do the same thing [as Sharon Angle]?

o      Santorum said that Sharon Angle had  SEVERAL MONTHS  in which to convince and win over voters.

o      Santorum said that Christine faced a difficult challenge of  “a very compressed window” and “Christine O’Donnell has WEEKS” (only) to accomplish what other candidates had MONTHS to do in other States.

o      Santorum said that Christine’s challenge in the election was Republicans not supporting the Republican nominee

o      Santorum implicitly endorsed Christine O’Donnell as qualified, while discussing Greta’s question “What does it mean to be qualified?”   Santorum explained Christine O’Donnell is qualified if the voters believe she is qualified….  it is up to the voters. 


o      Santorum said that Christine O’Donnell’s challenge was that “They are trying to discredit her.“

        And:  “If you look at what they’ve done to Christine.  They have put her outside of that.  They’ve said no, she’s a … she’s a, you know, she’s a whacko.  She’s someone who is out there on the extreme.  She’s NOT.  And people will find that out.”

          In response to those precise criticisms, Santorum said  “SHE’s NOT. And people will find that out.”


o       Santorum said:  “If she is given the opportunity to do it, which she will be.”  Greta interrupts:  “She may.”  “I think she will [turn it around].  And tonight’s interview from everything I’ve heard [interrupted]“

o       So Rick Santorum predicted that Christine O”Donnell would be able to turn it around and overcome the negative attacks against her, and Rick Santorum predicted that Christine O’Donnell would “turn it around.”
____________________________________________________________

Apparently there are two theories on elections in the Republican Party:

        (a)   Hard work, application of mental and physical effort the old fashioned way to win over supporters and do work

        (b)   DO NOTHING, sit back, and then fight over the credit for the winners and throw stones at the losers.

      Choice (b) is dangerous because it FAILS to actually win elections.   Republican elites are not interested in doing the hard work of rolling up their sleeves and running election campaigns.  They simply want to posture for the maximum personal benefit.

       Republican elites have abandoned the task of running successful election campaigns and instead are simply sitting back and throwing stones at their own candidates, and attacking those with the courage to go into the arena and fight for what we believe.

        While this hypocrisy among Republicans is wrong and unfair to those who valiantly try to take power from liberals, it is also destructive to the Republican party because the elites are abandoning the efforts needed to actually win at the ballot box.

_______________________________________

o      Sharon Angle took on the Senate Majority leader — the most powerful Democrat in the country besides the President.  For any Republican to unseat the incumbent Senate Majority Leader was the longest of long shots.  The fact that the tea party movement (even before Sharon Angle’s nomination) made Harry Reid unpopular and brought Sharon Angle close to winning is incredible.

o      Christine O’Donnell ran for US Senate in Delaware with 110,000 more Democrat than Republican registered voters.   GOP elites in Delaware sat on their hands while the Democrat party increased Democrat voter registration by a stunning 11% from 2008 to 2010.  While people note that Christine O’Donnell has run before without success, Christine O’Donnell took on   JOE BIDEN  in 2008 — an almost impossible target.

        In 2010, Christine O’Donnell again sought to win the last 4 years of Joe Biden’s 6 year terms won in 2008 in a special election on November 2, 2010.   Joe Biden is the Vice President of the United States, and it was his seat in his home state that Christine O”Donnell was seeking.   Why did the IRS issue an erroneous tax lien, and then promptly admit they were wrong and withdraw it — but damage done?   Why did the national news media come down so hard on Delaware?  Having the Vice President of the United States potentially embarrassed in his own home State had nothing to do with this?

        Those willing to hunt the big game in blue states deserve our greatest honor and utmost respect.   Those who aimed for the easy victories in Republican-leaning States are heros, too.  But no one deserves greater honor and greater respect than Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle who charged the beach at Normandy.  While others picked off easy victories, Angle and O’Donnell stormed the “enemy” at their strongest points and put pressure on the Democrats on their home turf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • nickm

    You’re a truly annoying, mendacious shill for one of the most embarrassing statewide candidates in generations.

    FACT: The IRS did not issue a lien “in error” and apologize about it. I read the documents O’Donnell posted on her website. They do not say what she claims they do. They simply reflected that she had promised to provide further documentation to support the deductions she was claiming.

    FACT: O’Donnell put no pressure on the Democrats. She did worse than the GOP nominee for the U.S. House in Delaware, and he didn’t raise $9 million.

    Maybe your kind of conservative lies about their education, lies about their work history, lies about well-respected conservative organizations like ISI, steals campaign money to pay their personal bills, makes bizarre claims like the one that companies have developed mice with fully functioning human brains, and claims to have picnicked on a satanic altar (which, BTW, I think never happened and she made up because she liked being on TV). Mine doesn’t.

    She’s a dishonest, grifting opportunist who meets a lot of the criteria for borderline personality disorder.

    A whole lot of people held their noses and said polite things about O’Donnell once she became the nominee. It doesn’t mean they forever have to pretend that she’s the second coming of Margaret Thatcher.

  • Read Chesterton

    his backing of Specter over Toomey is just one of them. My personal opinion is that he’s a good guy, a wonderful family man, but a weak, spineless politician.

    On the other hand, there are good sound reasons for O’Donnell quickly fading from view as well. All for the best.

  • grassroots1773

    FACT; the IRS admitted that the tax lien was an error. The proof was posted on Christine’s website. Did you not do your homework?

    The IRS admittted that the tax lien was an error — and promptly canceled it.

    The IRS does not cancel tax liens unless they are in error

    FACT: Christine never lied about her education.

    FACT: Christine never lied about her work history

    FACT: ISI violated the law, and deserved to be sued, and people at ISI belong in jail right now for their conduct

    FACT: Christine never stole any campaign funds. You are aparrently ignorant. FEC rules allow a candidate to draw a salary from the campaign. Otherwise only millionaries could take time off to run for office.

    FACT: Christine accurately reported on a National Geographic report from December 15, 2005, in which National Geographic reports on the scientific development of scientists developing human brain cells in mice

    FACT: Christine reported that a guy tried to impress her by taking her on a date after a movie and LATER telling her that it was his satanic altar.

    You sir, cannot get your facts straight.

    If you did your homework and listened to the interview, you would have learned that Christine clearly explained SHE DID NOT KNOW IT AT THE TIME, AND THAT LATER the guy told her that where he set up the picnic was his satanic altar.

    Christine never claimed ti was true, only that some guy trying to get in her pants TOLD HER that. IT is obvious that teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls don’t know squat about satanic altars.

    Your first clue was that BILL MAHER IS A * COMEDY * SHOW DIMWIT

    FACT: You are the one who is dishonest, as we have just seen.

    FACT: Those attacking Christine are the opportuniists.

  • nickm

    I have never seen a post on RS that called for a Fisking more than yours.

    Here goes:

    FACT; the IRS admitted that the tax lien was an error. The proof was posted on Christine

  • grassroots1773

    First, you don’ thave to read things you are not interested in. So your offense at something you don’t want to read is laughable. If you don’t like it,

    DON’T VISIT MY DIARY PAGE, FRIEND

    Go read the cartoons if you don’t like this information .

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    1) There were several documents from the IRS posted on Chrsitine’s website, not just one. You admit you only read part of the story.

    The IRS admitted that they were in error and should not have issued the tax lien before an actual tax liability has been determined.

    At the time, there were *NO* taxes due, including because the audit had not yet been concluded. Christine owed *NO* taxes that she had not already paid. So a tax lien is an error.

    Furthermore, Christine sold the house in 2008.

    You claim no error by the IRS>

    The IRS put a lien on a house in 2010 THAT CHRISTINE SOLD IN 2008.

    No error? She did not even own the house !!!!!! How can the IRS put a lien on a house owned by someone else, and you call it not an error?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    2) Christine never claimed to have a degree. She claimed to have majored in English and communications, which she did.

    It may be unknown in your snob world, but there are millions of Americans who attend some college without completing 4 years.

    Christine’s campaign bio from 2008 is here:

    http://www.supportchristine.com/2008biography.pdf

    Christine never claimed to hold a degree, but to have majored in English and communications — which she actually did.

    More than that, Christine DID in fact complete 100% of all her requirements for a college degree in 1993. She earned a college degree in 1993 — but did not claim to have done so.

    The university held her diploma hostage as collateral to pay for the final semeester… then cancelled the last semester’s credits.

    But Christine in fact completed a bacherlor’s degree in 1993.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    3) Your opinion about FEC law is irrelevant and not worthy of comment

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    4) The actual documentary record of ISI’s violation is in black and white, and is on record. ISI broke the law. The facts are there on paper, in their own emails.

    ISI got caught red handed.

    People at ISI should be in jail

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    5) The lawsuit clearly says that when hired in MARCH she was hoping to attend Princteton IN THE FALL.

    Outside snob world, THE FALL comes AFTER March

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    6) It is very, very difficult to get a lawyer to take a lawsuit on contingency other than personal injury.

    But a plaintiff is still required to pay for court reporters, expert witnesses, out of pocket costs, etc.

    Even when you have a lawyer on continency, you still need to cough up tens of thousands of dollars.

    Sorry, guy, but you just don’t know very much about much at all.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    7) You claim that one could not enter a Princeton master’s without a bachelor’s diploma.

    You sure of that? NO!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    8) While on the one hand FEC rules prhoibit the use of funds for EXPENSES that are personal, the same FEC rules ALLOW a candidate to draw a SALARY, which can then be used for ANYTHING including rent.

    Furthermore, Christine’s campaign did not pay Christine’s rent.

    You really don’t know very much, do you?

    Christine has TWO (2) condos side by side (in a group of townhouses or row houses).

    ONE condo — completely separate and totally apart from the other — is dedicated 100% to office space for the campaign and 0% to personal use. The rent on that condo was paid by Christine’s campaign.

    The other condo — a totally separate unit (adjoining but not connected, no pass through) — is where Christine lives with her sister.

    So amount of rent paid for by the campaign for Christine: $0.00

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    9) Christine was fully aware of a scientific development that midget critics like you KNEW NOTHING ABOUT at all.

    Christine quoted from the National Geographic report — from memory without notes — but dropped one word in the chaotic debate.

    Because her words track word for word with the National Geographic report, she obviously knew what it said and was referring to it, but dropped one word.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    10) What you said is not an accurate representation of what Christine said on TV.

    On Bill Maher, Christine explicitly said “I DID NOT KNOW IT AT THE TIME” but described how a teenage boy took her out for a picnic after a movie and “I DID NOT KNOW IT AT THE TIME” but the boy set up the picnic on ‘WHAT HE CALLED” his satanic altar.

    How many teenagers do you know actually know spit about satanic altars.

    Are you naive?

    Do teenage boys: (a) try to act tough to get girls, or (b) know spit about satanic altars?

    What world do you lie in dude?

    When a teenage boy takes an attractive teenage girl out for a late-night picnic after a movie date, what do you think is going on?

    And how long does it take for a teenage boy to become and expert in satanism?

    Where is your common sense?