The Romney media office, aka the Drudgereport, blares the headline “SANTORUM: OBAMA PREFERABLE TO ROMNEY”
Except, that’s is not what he said and I am fairly sure not what he meant. Here is the quote.
Speaking at an event in Texas, Santorum again made the case that Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom’s comments Wednesday on CNN about a “reset” of the campaign if Romney clinched the nomination showed the former Massachusetts governor’s efforts to appeal to conservatives were insincere.
“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,” Santorum told a crowd in San Antonio, according to NBC News. “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.”
The key context of the quote is in the lede in. He is speaking about giving voters “the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different.” So what follows in his statement is how Santorum (and I for that matter) imagines how the voter will look at it. You need a real contrast. If your walls are already painted beige, why would you bother to paint them beiger. You wouldn’t. You would stick with what you have.
What Santorum is saying is that we need contrast in this election. McCain lost the election when the financial crisis hit and his only response was “I agree with Senator Obama.” Well, why wouldn’t we pick him? We did.
What Santorum is warning about is if you offer the voter a choice between Obama and Obamaesque, voters will probably choose Obama. Why paint the walls?
March 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm
First of all, I'm glad to see you all cannot dispute the fact that Archbold is a hypocrite (aside from the cute little Princess Bride quote, which amounts to a dodge), but have chosen instead to resort to bashing Ron Paul. So now that we know Archbold is a hypocrite, we can move on to the way you have chosen to deal with this.
You all have resorted to the same smear campaign and unsubstantiated claims (unless you can give references) against Ron Paul that Archbold depends heavily on. Really, I expected better from fellow conservatives.
And Sophia's Favorite, I will address you, since, if I cut through all of your sarcasm and name-calling, you, unlike the others, have presented some actual points and concerns.. I will simply ask, does having certain groups favor a certain candidate mean that those groups are indicative of the kind of people the candidate attracts? I doubt you will say tehy are representative of the whole. Although you haven't even really given backing to these claims in the first place (which I am happy to look at if you give it). The reality is Ron Paul attracts a ton of different people simply because he stands for the principles of liberty and small, constitutional government–and most of those are good, concerned, hard-working Americans (Copy the following link into your browser to see *4000* people attending a political rally for Ron Paul, and I sincerely doubt those are all neo-nazis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj46XbP2NcE). Though again, you really should substantiate these claims.
Most people's only defense against Ron Paul is the smear campaign, because it's harder to, you know, actually use reasoning against a man whose predictions have all come true.
It's funny, there's a saying: "If you want to upset a liberal, use reasoning and logic." But I would like to add, "If you want to hear so-called conservatives argue like liberals, speak to them about Ron Paul."
March 24, 2012 at 4:35 pm
In fact, I'm calling Archbold out.
Archbold, I would like to hear you try to defend yourself against your flagrant hypocrisy. Come on, give it a shot if you're man enough? You sit behind that computer and think that you can say whatever you want with impunity, but I'm getting sick of it.
You either learn to approach Ron Paul's positions with some reasoning and respect, or you stop whining when others don't do the same with your favored candidate.
March 24, 2012 at 4:57 pm
In fact, I'm calling Archbold out.
*checks calendar* Day that ends in Y, eh?
You keep demanding things, then ignore them if they don't agree with you. I don't think you need to hold your breath for them to be handed to you again….
March 24, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Haha, wow. Foxfier, you just proved this point of mine: "If you want to hear so-called conservatives argue like liberals, speak to them about Ron Paul." That makes zero sense.
If anyone can decipher what foxfier was saying and how it's a response to my quote that I'm calling Archbold out, please help me out.
Hilarious.
March 24, 2012 at 5:38 pm
I'll be a bit more plain-spoken:
You hang around and try to call the CMR hosts out all the time. It's nothing worthy of announcement. Nor is your habit of ignoring or mocking things that don't suit you, then whining about Ron Paul not being treated "fairly"– which would mean being agreed with, while his many shortcomings are ignored.
March 24, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Finally, thank you. Someone being forthright. Now we can actually have a conversation.
Two things:
1) "It's nothing worthy of announcement."
a) I used to like this blog but for this entire election cycle have felt alienated by a blogger who uses the same tactics as the MSM that he so often decries.
b) If it's not worthy of announcement, I guess that means you all know it goes on.
2) I just gave reasoning to Sophia's Favorite as to why I disagreed with her point about Ron Paul's supporters (which, when I make a point, I try to provide some backing as I did with the link…so I'm not "demanding" anything that I would not also give). I'm looking for a REASONED conversation, not character assassination and abusive ad hominems.
3) I am not overlooking RP's flaws. I know he has them. But most people who bring them up have failed to demonstrate how those flaws should bother me in my support for him as a candidate. Furthermore, I bet I can articulate his flaws better than most people who disagree with him can, but I don't think any of them disqualify him from being the best possible candidate for the presidency, especially when you compare them to a frank examination of the OTHER candidate's flaws.
I have no problem with people disagreeing. In fact, I welcome the debate. But if you're going to disagree with him, at least have good reasons for doing so. And I have found that good reasoning is usually in short supply for those who disagree with Ron Paul. (Hence why they have to call him "Dr. Boing-Boing" and his supporters "stupid.") Kind of pitiful, really.
March 24, 2012 at 5:52 pm
And I meant to write "Three Things."
March 24, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Finally, thank you. Someone being forthright. Now we can actually have a conversation.
No, we can't.
And I'm done helping you hijack this thread to your pet dead horse.
March 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Anonymous 6:39
I just heard tha Obama is not letting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) help any tornado victims. Your son got insurance and he is paying a premium. What will he get for his premium when catastrophe stricks? Medicare premiums are to double in 2014. More HOPE and CHANGE.
March 25, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Pat is spot on his assessment. Santorum has made the same point using numerous ways to do so. Unfortunately this time it wasn't as clearly spoken as it could have been, and he has admitted this. Santorum has explained this throughout his campaign that Obama versus Obama-lite is not giving voters a real choice.
March 26, 2012 at 9:02 pm
All I know is whoever Mary De Voe votes for, I will make sure to vote for the other guy. Geez, she sounds like the mother from "Carrie."