Santorum Schools CNN's Crowley on What 'Moderate' and 'Willing to Work With the Other Side' Mean
Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Sunday gave CNN's Candy Crowley a much-needed education on what "moderate" and "willing to work with the other side" mean in Washington today.
Appearing on State of the Union, Santorum correctly informed his host that the kind of Republican she wants in office "means doing what the other side wants only doing it slower instead of doing what is necessary for this country" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
Toward the end of a lengthy interview, Crowley brought up Santorum’s endorsement of Dan Liljenquist over Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.).
The former Pennsylvania Senator said, “We need a different kind of actor in Washington, D.C. We’ve reached the point where we need people to say, ‘No,’ and have the backbone to say, ‘I’m not going to do less of a bad thing anymore. We are going to start doing good things instead of compromise doing less bad.”
“We saw the same thing play out in Indiana with Dick Lugar,” countered Crowley, “a man who was known, he had conservative principles, but he was willing to work with the other side.”
“Hold on,” interrupted Santorum. “What does that mean? When you say, ‘willing to work with the other side.’ This is the real key that I think Tea Party folks and conservatives generally have sort of had enough with.”
“Willing to work from the other side,” continued Santorum, “in this town means doing what the other side wants only doing it slower instead of doing what is necessary for this country which is scaling back government. Instead of growing government less fast, we want government to get smaller. Now, we’re willing to compromise on how quickly we do that, but the idea that we need people who just slow down this eventual growth and that’s the answer is wrong.”
“Just sounds like no room for moderates,” Crowley responded.
“What does ‘moderate’ mean?” asked Santorum.
“That perhaps you’d reach across the aisle and say, ‘I get where you’re coming from,’” replied Crowley.
“No, no, no,” Santorum countered. “Moderate in this town, a moderate understanding is doing more big government. In other words, ‘We’re still going to grow government, we’re just going to grow it less.’ We need to stop that.”
Indeed, but it really doesn't matter how many times liberal media members are told this. They just don't seem to catch on.
Bravo, Senator! Bravo!
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I just wish he had asked
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:23am.
I just wish he had asked Crowley who, the "moderates" are in the Democrat party who are willing to reach across the aisle and say they "get" where Republicans are coming from.
Exactly!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:33am.
A "moderate" Democrat is a person who is very quickly ushered out of the Democrat party.
Just ask Joe Lieberman
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:56am.
Good for Rick Santorum.
Every single (R) who runs his/her mouth in the media needs to go to Newt Debate School. Destroy the liberal bias of any question before you give an answer. Do not allow the questioner to pose any question from a viewpoint other than totally neutral. Ever.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 1:53am.
I heartily agree! Enough with the "accepted wisdom" bs!
Ronald Reagan
Moderate Democrats?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:46pm.
Senator Pomegranate is a moderate. He's spent three years moderating the non-vote on budget bills in the Senate. And Nancy Pirogi, who, IIRC, didn't invite any Republicans to work with the Democrats who prepare the bill that no one could read until it was passed. That was moderate, rights?
Cue Dilbert & Mulligan
I am the very model of a modern major Senator
I've sound bites spurious and curious, in talking memo form
I know John King of News and hum a little Pat Benatar
From New York schmooze to Waterloos, I lead the Demo storm.
I Pick Rick !
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:26am.
This is one of many reasons why he was my choice.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Me too, Free....
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:32am.
Me too, Free....
Santorum DID reach accross the aisle to increase debt limits!
Submitted by cbeyer on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:19pm.
Santorum snared himself in social issues and to many who post here, that makes him a great candidate but if you look at what issues are important to voters in this country, social issues are at the back of the bus. It's the economy, energy prices and policies, the housing market that will determine this election and Santorum was not viewed strongly in that area.
Actually as a Senator, his record of voting with the liberals on debt ceiling increases was actually poor.
That's apples and oranges
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:57pm.
When Santorum was in the Senate, it was a totally different fiscal situation.
He wasn't, as you say, "voting with the liberals".....he was voting with the (R's) too. Framing his record the way you've tried to.....well, we know your guy went down again. Oh well.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Santorum's history has been
Submitted by G L on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:09pm.
Santorum's history has been as a social conservative and a fiscal moderate - exactly the reverse of what we needed to see in this election.
I'm more than happy to see that in this interview, he's at least gotten the lip service correct; he understands the issue about smaller government and how compromise just gets us to hell on a slower boat. Conservatives need to have a few more voices who "get it" in front of the media, shredding false assumptions, and if Santorum is one of them and can continue to deliver spot on points like this, I have no problem whatsoever.
But with his history, I wouldn't have trusted him to make the right decisions once in office.
No worries, G L
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:51pm.
As with all of the trolls, the Paul Bots need to be refuted. It gets tiresome to read cbeyer's post a thousand times.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde..wrong again
Submitted by cbeyer on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:22pm.
My guy didn't go down. Yours did. My choice all along has been MR.
Simple:
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:41pm.
That's because you aren't a conservative.
We also know that you are beyond enraged at the fact that Santorum is continuing to breathe. Why not save this clip of your object of hatred from CNN and use it for your daily Two Minutes Hate?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Paying attention
Submitted by andrew85ash on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:12am.
You are not paying attention. The issues at stake in this election are as you mentioned the economy, energy, housing. You forgot liberty. That said why on earth was your choice always MR??? Government bailouts? Romney supported. Cap and Trade? Romney supported. National healthcare mandate? Romney lobbied for and supported. It's hard to take your opinion seriously when you clearly don't pay attention. Questions: What is social conservatism? Seriously? What does that mean to you?
I define "Social conservatism" as NOT wanting government imposing its beliefs on society (e.g. HHS mandate-Catholic Church)? It is the liberals who impose beliefs not the Santorums of the world. Changing the language needs to be done and what Santorum has done in this example. Liberals abuse semantics in every debate and RINOs are too quick to let the abuse slide.
I'm with you
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:34am.
I wish Santorum was our 2012 choice.
Sadly, the nomination process is SNAFU, just like Washington.
And why doesn't Obama ever 'reach across the aisle' and 'compromise'?
Santorum would have been a loser!
Submitted by cbeyer on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:16pm.
Santorum snared himself in social issues and to many who post here, that makes him a great candidate but if you look at what issues are important to voters in this country, social issues are at the back of the bus. It's the economy, energy prices and policies, the housing market that will determine this election and Santorum was not viewed strongly in that area. Actually as a Senator, his record of voting with the liberals on debt ceiling increases was actually poor.
And yet..
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:48pm.
"if you look at what issues are important to voters in this country, social issues are at the back of the bus."
And yet, liberals are constantly pushing social issues to the front of the bus. Go figure. Guess it's only bad when conservatives do it.
You are right but for the wrong reasons
Submitted by cbeyer on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:19pm.
Liberals and the media push social issues because they don't want the focus of the campaign to be on Obama's disasterous economic policies and the subsequent failures of them. Its actually a very smart strategy.
The Wrong of Way Pundit
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:44pm.
We know that you would anything to force social conservatives to shut up for good. You hate conservatives and want America to have its choice of two Leftists. (You'll settle on Romney though he isn't far enough Left for you.) But its obvious you don't follow politics very closely.
The social issues strategy is failing, and failing miserably. Did you see the election in NC lately? And why isn't the "war on (fill in the blank)" working if its a "very smart strategy"?
Go back to playing with your Santorum voodoo dolls...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
We've been compromising with the communists for nearly 100 years
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:27am.
And all we have to show for it is a bankrupt nation that is quite literally in its last days of existence.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Bravo...
Submitted by MacWell on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:15pm.
Well said and spot on.
Yup, well said. Anybody
Submitted by G L on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:20pm.
Yup, well said. Anybody paying attention to economists has heard that we have less than ten years to get our house in order before we implode like Greece.
Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate are so concerned about this, they've now gone three years without passing a budget because they don't want to have their viewpoints in writing.
It's the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. We've been in a fairly substantial crisis now for four years, and one that, if left unchecked, is going to be a massive problem, and most of our Washington representatives either have no clue, or are more concerned with short-term reelection problems.
G L ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 3:41pm.
" --and most of our Washington representatives either have no clue, or are more concerned with short-term reelection problems."
Santorum, though, couldn't have been trusted to 'make the right decisions' had he been nominated and then elected?
While George Wallace was correct when he stated "There ain't a dimes' worth of difference between politicians", there were/are certainly far worse choices than ol' Rick.
MD
No, Santorum couldn't have
Submitted by G L on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:30pm.
No, Santorum couldn't have been trusted to make the right choices had he been nominated and then elected. Why? Because his history indicates a social conservative and a fiscal moderate. In other words, his history shows someone who hadn't made the right choices before now.
It's laudable that he seems to have finally found small government sanity in a way that allows him to actually provide credible responses to leading media questions (Romney still struggles, at times), but that doesn't mean he's trustworthy in a way that undoes everything he's been in his past. It just means he's learned the words on the script.
Only time will tell whether Santorum is truly a reformed fiscal conservative or whether he's still the same fiscal moderate. It's too soon to tell. I tend not to trust miracle transformations that happen during campaigns.
And yes, you're absolutely right, there are far worse choices than ol' Rick. There are better ones too.
What it boils down to, regarding candidates, is ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 7:14pm.
an individual's preference and/or opinions, nothing more, as no one has the ability to correctly predict the future.
The saying "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it" is not necessarily a cut in stone imperative relative an individual politician's potential.
There were those who said Ronald Reagan would not make a good president; conversely, there were, and unfortunately still are, those who slobber over the disaster that is Obama.
MD
Just zero in on Crowley's eyes...
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:27am.
There are no lights on in there...
Too Bad...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:29am.
...that this was on "Communist News Network" instead of a real news channel. I'm certain that if Candi Jowley had trapped Sen. Sanitorium with a "gotcha" question, it would go wide band on the networks. As it is, the two dozen (one passed away overnight) viewers of CNN and the folks here will be the only ones to see this.
(one passed away overnight)
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:21pm.
You talkin' bout Rodney (can't we just all get along) King, Biggie?
Just saw on Drudge where he was found at the bottom of a pool. Still waiting to find out what the cause of death was.
My money is on, (A) It's Bush's fault, or (B) it's racist Republicans's in general fault.
I hope Jeb is proud that (Eat more) Candy Crowley is quoting him to conservatives, now, as an example of how an emasculated Republican should act around his intellectual superiors.
good for Santorum
Submitted by ohio granny on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:35am.
Every tea party candidate or politician needs to keep repeating this everytime they are interviewed. Maybe then some of the idiots in the republican party would actually start to believe that "willing to work" with the democrats means giving in to the democrats. The republican party has too many "moderates". Why are there no "moderates" in the democrat party?
A question for Candy Crowley - why do you never ask a democrat about working with the republicans or moderating their big government stance?
I am sick of the democrats NEVER, EVER moderating their stance on anything. They always expect the republicans to cave and unfortunatly they almost always do.
Rick did a so-so job in responding to.
Submitted by texasborngranny on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:14am.
Candy COWly's trying to COWER him into agreeing with her FALSE PREMISE.
I want a STRONGER response from Conservatives when an interviewer inserts the 'so you won't reach across the aisle' premise. Maybe something along the lines of:
"Candy, to Democrats, and their media sycophants, 'reach across the aisle' means that Republicans give Democrats (Liberal/Progressive/Socialists) exactly what the Democrats want every time, without exception. And we would not be serving the desires of the citizens who elected us if we did that."
Media sycophants also need to be reminded that the word 'compromise' means: the settlement of differences by MUTUAL concessions, or agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting desires by RECIPROCAL modification of differences.
Liberals will never get it
Submitted by Walker01049 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:35am.
They have no aptitude for logic. The socialist mindset is so integrand in the MSM AND Hollywood elite that there's no room for reasonable thinking. We're f'd as a nation if we don't get these socialist out of power.
CNN continues pimping.......
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:59am.
Candy Crawley, along with the Blitzman, Lemon, etc., continue to spout the administration talking points. CNN would have been a "First hired" by Goebbels in the 30's. Yes. That's the nicest thing I could say about this state run propaganda organ.
Conservative:"We're going in
Submitted by the struggler on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:04pm.
Conservative:"We're going in the wrong direction,Dude."
Moderate:"I hear ya,Bro.Let's just go in the wrong direction ,slower."
Good job Rick
Submitted by Rasmus on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:22pm.
Why can we see this, but so many other conservative minded people can't? We are told we must compromise our conservative values, our religious principles, our morals, and our common sense. But Liberals, Islamists, atheists, homosexuals, and Socialists just keep demanding more "compromise," while they continue moving forward with their own agendas? I think that's what Obama's campaign slogan, Forward, is all about. Wake up America, it is very nearly too late!
The left has always been that way.
Submitted by MarkR on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:44pm.
Agreed. The problem on the right is the erroneous belief that somehow the left is reasonable and that even though they play hardball ALL THE TIME we are supposed to pitch underhanded and give them a handicap. The plain truth is that the left is insatiable- (communists and marxists are also insatiable) they state ONE more stimulus pakage, one more government program, one more tax hike, one more executive order, one more supreme court decision, one more violation of the constiutution and the people's needs will be fulfilled. We know that one time violating our constitution is an invitation to throw the whole thing out. Its preposterous to think we can violate the principles of constitutional government again and again in order to maintain some pseudo peace with these tyrannists whose only REAL goal is government control of everything. They are insatiable.
We the people...
Submitted by MacWell on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:22pm.
must remove all those who believe that America NEEDS to be "fundamentally transformed", along with all the career politicians in Congress.
Congress was never intended to be anyone's career, especially not every lawyer that comes out of an ivy league college.
The House of Representatives was never intended to be overtaken by all lawyers. It was intended to be filled with Americans from all walks of life.
The Senate was intended to be filled by the states, not elected by the people.
We the people must return to the model the founders gave us, america will thank us later.
Reaction to Romanticism
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:56pm.
Congress was never intended to be anyone's career, My romantic, that's the fault of lazy voters. It's much better to say "This nation was never intended to be full of lazy voters" but that would require looking for an actual area of fault instead of a scapegoat.
By the way, seeing as you hate EVIL "career politicians", I take it you want to start over and just write a new Constitution? You know, the document written in part by EVIL "career politicians" who were either in the midst of their careers or got their start there? Take James Madison. He was the author of the Bill of Rights for the most part, yet he was an EVIL "career politician".
The House of Representatives was never intended to be overtaken by all lawyers. It was intended to be filled with Americans from all walks of life. Where is this stated? Not that I don't marvel at why our Congress is filled with lawyers while other national legislatures are not; I'm just curious where it is stated that the HR was "intended to be filled with Americans from all walks of life". I can name lots of things that were intended to go one way yet went another...
The Senate was intended to be filled by the states, not elected by the people. You are about 100 years late on that one. Besides, I have yet to hear a single word about what good it would do for the state legislatures to elect Senators again. Instead of having a Senate full of Senators charged with voters to "bring home the bacon", you'll have a Senate full of Senators charged with trying to put as much on the federal government's budget as possible to help state budgets...
We the people must return to the model the founders gave us, america will thank us later. Not even that worked out perfectly. We have had EVIL "career politicians" since the founding. The 17th Amendment was enacted via procedures the Founders devised.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Good try Rick...
Submitted by Aubrey on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:34pm.
....but Leftists do not understand the concept you espouse. A smaller more effective less intrusive Govt is totally foreign to their flawed ideology.
You can tell that by the way
Submitted by G L on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:45pm.
You can tell that by the way they respond to the tea party. It's been amazing the last few years to watch them try to wrap their minds around what it all means and then fail.
It seems simple to us, because we believe in the ideas on which this country was founded, but they just can't get it. It's actually funny to watch them struggle with it.
This is why Romeny scares me..
Submitted by MarkR on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:37pm.
Santorum gave the answer that made the difference and that liberals HATE to hear. Newt would have done the same. Would Mitt? I wonder. This is why our government continues to grow and our freedoms continue to erode. In the age of Reagan its the reason they hated him because he wasnt willing to move away from clear principles to move to a slower version of liberalism (liberalism light). Reagan is the one they refer to now as though he were some great compromiser-truth be told he stuck to his guns and his political instincts and charmful personality were only adjuncts to his principled stands. Those who werent there dont know that he was as vilified as any human beling has ever been in office. He stood the test overall- and he had a democratic congress to boot. --So we will see. But I fear we could have liberalism light and that's not what this tea party movement is about.
Santorum voted for growing "Big Gov"
Submitted by lrgon on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:39pm.
When he cast his "yea" vote for No Child left Behind."In translation that meant a huge increase to the Dept of Education to continue miseducating children that attend "public/government schools."
More Santroum "reaching across the isle":
a.) voted so many times to increase the national debt that when Ron Paul caught him and exposed him he gave that deer in the headlights stare and uttered some nonsense during the campaign like: so what, other Republicans voted along with me, like my good friend Arlen Spector.
.
b.)Santorum voted for a huge increase to Medicare. His "yea" vote for the prescription drug program Plan D didn't exactly displease big spending liberals that winked across the isle at the solon from Pa. Voters however didn't wink at his past trangressions; they threw him out on his ear for being a "fake Republican."
c.) Had Santorum not helped liberal, RINO Arlen Spector get reelected Obamacare may not have passed since Spector cast his vote for oh,BAAAH maa CARE.
Rick puts on an act but even in this day of the internet when facts are only a click away, his act is good enough apparently judging by the pro-rickie posts.
As Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them." Jesus never added that all hell will break lose when a fake conservative is exposed but the TRUTH brings out the nastiness in people when confronted with it.
Would you PaulBots give it up already?
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:11pm.
Get over it.
You're boring us.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Santorum is a net negative for the Republican Party
Submitted by CT on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:58pm.
Has been for a long time. I voted for both him and Specter many long years ago would not make that mistake again.
Luckily for us, the decision
Submitted by G L on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:52pm.
Luckily for us, the decision about whether to elect him is over, even though you seem to have never gotten that message.
As long as what comes out of Santorum's mouth now is along the lines of this absolutely correct set of responses to Crowley, I'm happy to have him as a spokesman for the forces of good. Even with his history.
The Democrat Dictionary
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:46pm.
What is the definition of a moderate Republican? One who bows polity as they concede all authority to the Democrats.
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.
Moderates
Submitted by Eagle101 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:05pm.
What's a moderate Arab?
One that's out of ammo
Vote for me I'll give you less.How on earth do you sell that?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:26pm.
That kind of thinking goes against every, single political sales pitch from the last 100 years.
Personally I like it. I like it a lot.
You Didn't Build That.
How about this: "Vote for
Submitted by G L on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:54pm.
How about this: "Vote for me, I'll give you back your freedom."
If liberty and freedom can't
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 3:03pm.
If liberty and freedom can't be sold with little effort then humanity is rightly screwed.
Less government is more.
Freedom and Liberty has been ditched for fairness and equality
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:15pm.
This sort of equality:
Affirmative action, [...], is perhaps the most glaring example of the up-side-down interpretation of equality, where results trump all other objectives – a starkly Marxist construct indeed.
By misinterpreting our founders’ meaning of equality, we are at risk of steering our social policies toward the statist objectives of government welfare and control over our means and our lives.
Fairness update:
President Barack Obama, offering an election-year prescription to spur the economy, said the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes in the name of fairness, to bring down the deficit and ensure those trying to make ends meet don’t have to “make up the difference.”
....We The People ...Liberty and Freedom...
You Didn't Build That.
Santorum should have said...
Submitted by Paul G on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:27pm.
I did compromise.....and that's why we're 15 trillion dollars in debt.
OBTW
Submitted by CT on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 3:02pm.
Now that I've vented on Santorum I must also state he is 100% correct with regards to the MSM concept of a Republican moderate and 'reaching across the isle', it's a one-way proposition.
Now that the MSM is in full leftwing campaign mode every time they pose the moderates reaching across the isle meme it needs to be immediately shoved right up their backside. Barrack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have not considered let alone compromised on anything that did not come straight out of the Alinsky school of Marxism.
Bad form, lets not ruin
Submitted by hoosherdaddy137 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:39pm.
Bad form, lets not ruin classic musical theater on any account
compromise
Submitted by Robersire on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:45pm.
The Dems want compromise when the Repubs are in power. Otherwise, when they are in power, forget compromise. (Obamacare and Stimulus)
Say what one will of
Submitted by Slyrr on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:02pm.
Say what one will of Santorum, he nailed it here. When a liberal says they want 'compromise' or to 'reach across the aisle', what they really mean is that they'll allow their enemies to surrender in a few minutes, rather than instantly. Liberal 'compromise', however, still means that the liberals get everything they want, and everyone else gets nothing.
And I, for one, am indeed sick of that kind of 'compromise'. It was that kind of compromising that made McCain the pampered darling of the media during the Bush years. They loved McCain then because he would drop his pants, bend over and grab his ankles every time the media dominatrix cracked a whip over his head. He would tongue the bunions of any liberal he interviewed with, and beg them for more.
Until the day he became the GOP candidate. Then he became a demon and turned on him. The moment he stopped giving the liberals everything they wanted, and stopped being their spank toy, they stabbed him in the back. No compromise there.
It just shows the truth of my signature at NB. When a liberal tries to put their arms around you, all they're doing is looking for a good place to stick a knife. They are not to be compromised with, because they themselves will not compromise. Ask them to give up their principles. Go on, try it. They will howl with fury and utterly refuse. And just LISTEN to them in the news. All the hate and rage, bragging about how they want to kill their enemies and wipe them out? How do you compromise with liberals when the starting point of their 'negotiations' is for you to totally give up and surrender everything?
I look at it as Compromise =
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:17pm.
I look at it as Compromise = Leftist Incrementalism.
When and how often have the Left "compromised" on something without something in return? How many times has this happened when they had control of the House, Senate and Presidency? Lincoln wanted to compromise with the South and Democrats, but the Democrats smelled the incremental end of slavery and seceded. Since that time, the Left - Democrats - have been incrementally sticking it to the Right in retaliation, especially since the Left's importation of Marxism and subsequent infiltration into positions of power.
Over 10 years of the Left's incrementalism away from the Constitution and traditions that built and maintained America, a little bit further each day, without any endpoint, onwards to oblivion. Santorum is correct. Define terms properly and refute the Left's arguments. No more Leftward creep.
Reach across the aisle
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 7:17pm.
Republicans/conservatives reaching across the aisle virtually always ends the same way as hand-feeding raw meat to an alligator. The alligator gets what it wants, and you lose.
where was this Santorum?
Submitted by fadeinlight on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:13pm.
If Santorum were more like this during the Primaries, I would've been more supportive.
It was there!
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:26pm.
That why I voted for em. But I want Orin Hatch re-elected
Democrat: never open
Submitted by Netstatter on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:33am.
The Democrats are never open to other viewpoints. It's all about what THEY want. You're OK as long as you are willing to go their way. But to go at least part-way across to the other side's viewpoint? They never want to do that.
It's a revamp of the old 60's slogan: "I'm OK, you're NOT OK".
Yada yada yada, blah blah blah
Submitted by michael lofrano on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:46am.
When was the last tie Crowley et al. questioned Pelosi, Reed, or a member of the Congressional Black Caucus about their roles in creating an atmosphere of moderation?