Rick Santorum Challenges Carl Bernstein's Accusation He Wasn't Popular With GOP Colleagues
Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe Wednesday, began his discussion with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum by saying, "You were not considered among your Republican colleagues to be the most popular member of the class in the Senate. I don’t think that’s an understatement."
After co-host Mika Brzezinski incredulously asked, "What do you mean by that, Carl," the former Pennsylvania Senator pushed back (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CARL BERNSTEIN, VANITY FAIR: You were not considered among your Republican colleagues to be the most popular member of the class in the Senate. I don’t think that’s an understatement. And, so my question to you…
RICK SANTORUM: Well, hold on, whoa, whoa, whoa.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, CO-HOST: What do you mean by that, Carl?
SANTORUM: Let me just, let me just say that I was elected to leadership…
BERNSTEIN: Yes.
SANTORUM: …as a 42-year-old Senator to the number three leadership position in the United States Senate because of the fact that I was out there. Yes, I mean, I wasn’t popular in the sense that I was taking on a lot of tough conservative issues, but I wasn’t maybe popular, but I certainly was respected enough to be in a position of leadership then reelected twice and was actually in position to take a higher leadership position had I won my election.
Interesting that even Brzezinski thought this was a tad over the top.
The reality is that Santorum became Senator at the early age of 36, and six years later became the GOP's third-ranking member in that chamber. Couldn't have been unpopular to achieve that.
In addition, as he noted to Bernstein, Santorum was in position to possibly take Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) position as Whip if he had won in 2006.
But the bigger issue here is that with Santorum's huge trifecta win in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri Tuesday, the Obama-loving media are going to be sharpening their knives to cut him down at every turn.
Bernstein's unpopularity comment is just the beginning.
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This is what they're reduced to.
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:57am.
"Nobody liked you!" You weren't popular!!
I love Santorum's response, which is basically it's better to be respected than liked.
Carl Bernstein: trying to remain relevant on the the basis of a scoop 35 years ago.
Poor Carl
Submitted by Dukehoopsfan on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:14pm.
You beat me to it. Pool Carl is just another old fat one hit wonder trying to cope with the reality that he looks more like Mrs. Doubtfire each day. Irrelevance is a bitch.
Ad hominem MB
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:18pm.
...which in this case is a good thing.
If that's his best shot, then that's good news for Santorum.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Bernstein looks like
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:49pm.
Art Buchwald without the movie star good looks . . . or the humor.
He does look like Art!
Submitted by frank14 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 2:38pm.
LOL!
delete double
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:57am.
delete double
Poor Ms Berstein,
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:00pm.
Still catty after all these years.
Brzezinski didn't think it
Submitted by cristo on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:00pm.
Brzezinski didn't think it was over the top, she was playing straight man for Bernstein.
Uh-oh
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:50pm.
Now you'll just make Racial Madcow envious of Bernstein.
Hold on
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:15pm.
You summed it up with "Bubbles didn't think"
Bernstein envisions himself as the man who brought down...
Submitted by KyWriter on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:00pm.
...a President. It must really bug him that people remember Dustin Hoffman's portrayal but wouldn't recognize him in a police lineup. All they would see is a fat, incontinent old goat slipping into dementia, whose pronouncements mean nothing.
Carl in a police lineup.
Submitted by Buzzy on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:13pm.
Carl would be the one in the trench coat and bare legs.
Maybe Carl...
Submitted by Buzzy on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:10pm.
Carl should just stick to writing about his bears. :)
Watergate, much ado about nothing important. But hey it involved the GOP, so it will remain in the history books as some horrendous act, rather than a blotched break in of an opponents playmaking facility. Sort of like spying on the other team to see what plays they run, after all, politics is a game; with too many spectators and not enough players.
Dear Buzzy
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:26pm.
I'm just curious. You say Watergate was much ado about nothing important. Were you there? I seem to recall it was something about the US Consitution..which some around here beleive deeply. And politics is more than a game because unlike let's say the superbowl..it can reach out and touch your life.
I was there
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:49pm.
"Were you there?"
I was there, and "Watergate" itself had nothing to do with the Constitution. Nixon did bring up questions about the Constitutional powers of the President when he uttered the now infamous line that the law doesn't apply to the President, but that really had NOTHING to do with the break in itself, or the supposed cover up, something that wasn't ever really verified. It had everything to do with his rather massive ego. Of course, Nixon resigned as opposed to having Impeachment proceeding brought against him, so the Constitutional questions were never really answered, correct?
Was there a "cover up" by the Nixon administration? Did the Nixon administration plan and execute the break in, as the Washington Post alleged? We don't know, and we will never know. Once Nixon resigned, the whole "issue" became "much ado about nothing." Which, by the way, exposed the whole "Watergate" situation for what it really was, a political hatchet job, designed to one thing only: take down the president. Nixon, of course, seemed more than willing in cutting his own political throat, so to speak. In my opinion, he deserved exactly what he got, infamy!
There's a lesson about being careful with letting your ego guide you! After months and months of negative press, after months and months of Congressional "investigations," after all the media hype and hoopla, Nixon's own ego is what finally defeated him. Don't forget that, until he uttered those infamous words, he still had the support of the majority of Americans even during the "height" of the Watergate "scandal." Once he said those words, it was all over for him politically. He really had no choice but to resign.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Didn't G.Gordon Liddy once
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:14pm.
Didn't G.Gordon Liddy once say he met Bernstein and found him to be "stuffy" ?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Well, that explains it!
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:37pm.
That explains the Watergate pseudonym, "Deep Throat"!
If it where not for
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:51pm.
If it where not for Watergate, Bernstein would be an unknown. His noteriety is his reward from the liberal media for his part. Bernstein is running on fumes of a media hyped scandal from 72', how pathetic is that?
Has Carl regressed back to junior high?
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 2:30pm.
Who cares if he was popular among his colleagues in the senate? Popularity is hardly a measure of leadership or effectiveness, as multiple studies in organizational development have found. Popularity often connotes quite the opposite, e.g. the person is trying too hard to get along because they are covering for bad performance.
If Carl is that senile, he needs to be on medication and/or institutionalized.
Well, that explains it...
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:22pm.
"You were not considered among your Republican colleagues to be the most popular member of the class in the Senate. "
Well, that explains why he was never elected to leadership positions in the Senate. Oh, wait...
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
popular
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:26pm.
and how popular is the Senate?
One trick pony
Submitted by greydawg on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:55pm.
Bernstein, the ultimate example of a one-trick pony, has had a lifetime of riding the glory of his single accomplishment 50 years ago. This old horse should be put out to a distant pasture, where even MSNBC can't find him.
Watergate - The first and only......
Submitted by richard on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:06pm.
.....news story that Bernstein has ever been involved with, that made it to the front page of the NYT. This old, fat goat will ride this singular achievement like a pack mule, until he quits breathing. Carl, your notoriety has exited stage left, over 30 years ago...take a hint.
Dear Old Carl was
Submitted by texasborngranny on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:09pm.
relevant once in his life and has spent the rest of his life desperately trying to be so again.
So sad.
Oh, bull. You miss the point once again
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:29pm.
The senator admits he wasn't embracing the "tough conservative" stance on issues.
Santorum: "Yes, I mean, I wasn’t popular in the sense that I was taking on a lot of tough conservative issues,..." Who , whoa, stop right there,Mr. Sheppard.
What is the core conservative issue "popularity," or is sticking to conservative principles? Rick Santorum admits he wasn't "popular" when he deviated from the issues.
Carl Berstein is half correct in his analysis. Santorum is just verbal gymnastics to hide behind. The fact that he was programmed to vote for bureaucracy is never investigated. He is unfortunaely like most politicians saving his "conservative" rhetoric for the campaign and voting to expand federal bureaucracy
Investors Business Daily published:“Regulation without Representation” a very eye opening article that a new federal rule or regulation is published every two hours, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Economists at Lafayette College counted the cost and concluded that regulations cost the American economy more than half the federal budget! That is more than the annual deficit totalling $1.75 TRILLION each and every year! Small business faces the brunt of these regulations.
In 2008 this burden exceeded $10,000, per employee. When that burden is translated into the burden on the ultimate consuming household —recognizing that all costs are ultimately paid by the consumer, directly or indirectly — the burden exceeds $15,000 a year. When the total federal burden, both regulatory and fiscal, is calculated, the average household in America is saddled with costs approaching $40,000 a year.
Take NCLB, a new federal grant to the Dept. of Education that Santorum is now sorry he voted for. He went off the reservation for that one, big time!
It's the law of the land - the Constitution - that Rick has a problem with.
Under the Constitution (Article I, Section 1) “all legislative powers herein contained shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Nowhere is power granted in the Constitution for said Congress to grant broad authority to Executive branch agencies like the DOE, EPA, Energy Dept, et al.
For example Congress enacts a law that there must not be “excessive” levels of mercury in any body of water in the United States (ignoring for the moment whether such a law in itself is Constitutional or not), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would take that law and determine what constitutes “excessive,” what bodies of water are to be regulated, and what penalties will be applied to miscreants and polluters. In other words, the EPA recombines the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government that the founders so clearly feared and rejected. Multiply that example by dozens of agencies and hundreds of statutes enforced by agency bureaucrats and the result: one new regulation every two hours.
Ron Paul votes to gut funding to every single agency, bureau and cabinet level department. When Rick Santorum was there on the Hill posturing and jockeying for leadership position he voted for increasing funding to the Dept of Education, EPA, expanding federal power to arrest "pro-life" demonstrators, voting for more federal anti-gun legislation,etc. as documented here: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10549-santorum-voted-to-subsid...
and here: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Santorum-Haunted-Pro-abortion-Specter...
Do you Paulbots write this stuff yourselves...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:54pm.
...or just copy and paste from a campaign source.
Be happy to read your own thoughts, but 2 pages of cut and paste here just don't get read.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
What the post is saying
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:52am.
(and I could be wrong) is that Santorum may be a Social Conservative but typical with many, not all or even most, strong Social Conservatives he is very weak on Fiscal Conservatism. Many people believe it is because the rhetoric of Social Financing pricks the conscious of the Social Conservative and causes them to justify the need to go against Conservative Principals - you know, because it is for the children and things aren't fair.
BTW, that is the same 'Many People' that the media talk to when the media need a supporting quote - people I come into contact and converse with in the normal routine of my life.
I was wondering what tactic
Submitted by celator on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:42pm.
I was wondering what tactic the MSM would use to destroy Santorum. Looks like it's going to be derision and mockery.
Carl
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:54am.
I almost feel bad for this tool - every time I've seen him on MJ he says something he thinks is so smart, then looks around for approval, and the panel grudgingly gives it, furthering the delusion that Carl really IS smart.
Ronald Reagan