Category Archives: Rick Santorum

Al Jazeera distorts Santorum euthanasia comments and Citizen Wells article, Professor Ian Buruma article biased assumptive selective quoting, Elitist condescension

Al Jazeera distorts Santorum euthanasia comments and Citizen Wells article, Professor Ian Buruma article biased assumptive selective quoting, Elitist condescension

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”…George Orwell, “1984″ 

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

“Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,”…Hillary Clinton 

Al Jazeera has published an article by Professor Ian Buruma on the Washington Post article about Rick Santorum’s comments about euthanasia in the Netherlands. In an attempt to lend credence to the Washington Post article, Professor Buruma cited a Citizen Wells article that was critical of the Post article. The point made at Citizen Wells was that the Washington Post tried to completely discredit Santorum when in fact Santorum painted an accurate picture of most aspects of euthanasia in Holland. Professor Buruma quoted little of the Citizen Wells article and made many assumptions. He also used Alinsky like tactics of elitist condescension.

I came across the Post article by chance. The article could have been about any non Democrat candidate being maligned by the media, it just happened to be Santorum in this case. The point was the biased angle taken by the Post in an attempt to discredit him. The convenient ommission of facts, just as Professor Buruma has done. For example:

I stated: “Santorum may have been guilty of hyperbole but his fundamental message rings true.”

“From Dutch News November 9, 2011.

“A 64-year-old woman suffering from severe senile dementia has become the first person in the Netherlands to be given euthanasia even though she could no
longer express her wish to die, the Volkskrant reports on Wednesday.”

“The case has serious implications for Dutch euthanasia law because it means patients who are no longer able to state their wish can still be helped to die,
Constance de Vries, who acts as a second opinion doctor for euthanasia cases, told the paper.””
“From Forbes February 26, 2012.

“But Rick Santorum’s Sorta Right About Dutch Euthanasia”
“Not that I particularly care to defend a politician I most certainly don’t support: but the piling in on Rick Santorum over his remarks on the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia in Holland does seem a little over the top.”

“The numbers the Senator puts forward are also wrong: euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, is not 10% of all deaths.

Well, actually, that’s not quite true either. It depends upon how you define these different activities.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/washington-post-attacks-santorum-on-dutch-euthanasia-statement-post-bias-trumps-facts-santorum-point-valid-citizen-wells-awards-4-orwells/

Al Jazeera March 12, 2012.

“A new idea of truth
Quality journalism has suffered as the internet allows individuals to select ‘truth’ based on their prejudices.”

“Rick Santorum, a former United States senator seeking the Republican Party’s nomination to challenge President Barack Obama this year, has been saying some very strange things about the Netherlands. Ten per cent of all deaths in that country, he recently claimed, are from euthanasia, half of which are forced upon helpless patients. Old people are so frightened of being killed by homicidal doctors that they wear bracelets that read: “Do not euthanise me.”
In a way, Santorum’s canards must come as a relief to a country that has increasingly been in the news for outrageous statements by right-wing populists about Muslims and Greeks. Indeed, Santorum’s view of the Netherlands as a kind of progressive dystopia has a slightly old-fashioned ring to it nowadays.
The Dutch were nonetheless disturbed. Some in the country’s parliament even asked whether the foreign minister should lodge a complaint in Washington.
In fact, Santorum’s fantasies were swiftly refuted in the US itself. The Washington Post concluded that “there was not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims”, and found it “telling” that his campaign managers did not even bother to defend them. One US television station even apologised to a Dutch reporter in the name of the American people.
As the Post pointed out, there is no such thing as involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands. The patient’s consent is essential, and at least two doctors must agree that the patient’s suffering is unbearable and beyond cure. Besides, the share of assisted deaths in Dutch mortality is nowhere near 10 per cent. As for those bracelets, well…
But does any of this matter to Santorum’s followers? Probably not. Corrections from the “elitist” mainstream media are dismissed as enemy propaganda. As a blogger sympathetic to Santorum  put it: “The Washington Post, as one would expect, attempted to discredit Santorum.”
No more filter
It is disturbing, to say the least, that the most cogent refutations of bald-faced lies no longer make any impression. After all, a democracy cannot function without a public that is properly informed. Informing the public used to be the role of serious newspapers and television networks. Of course, not everything in the mainstream media is always true: Mistakes are made. News organisations have political biases, sometimes reflecting the views and interests of their owners.
But high-quality journalism has always relied on its reputation for probity. Editors, as well as reporters, at least tried to get the facts right. That is why people read Le Monde, The New York Times, or, indeed, The Washington Post. Filtering nonsense was one of their duties – and their main selling point.
That has changed. Populist demagogues in politics and the mass media are doing everything they can to discredit the quality press as propaganda organs for left-wing elites who sneer at the views of ordinary Americans. Santorum pretends to speak for these people – that is, for a minority of Americans who are mostly white, provincial, highly religious, deeply conservative on cultural and social issues, and convinced that Obama and all Europeans are dangerous godless socialists.
The point is not whether Santorum is right or wrong factually. What he says “feels” right to his followers, because it conforms to their prejudices. And the internet, having swamped the quality press, feeds and reinforces those prejudices, making it more difficult to distinguish the truth from lies.
The public is increasingly segmented into groups of likeminded people who see their views echoed back to them in blogs, comments and tweets. There is no need to be exposed to different opinions, which are, in any case, considered to be propaganda. Indeed, Santorum’s new fame will afford him a rich career as a media demagogue, even if he fails as a politician.
The truth is relative
The first people to argue that all truth is relative and that all information is a form of propaganda that reflects society’s power relations, were far removed from the world inhabited by Santorum and his supporters. Several decades ago, a number of European and American intellectuals, often with a background in Marxism, developed a “post-modern” critique of the written word. We might think, they argued, that what we read in The New York Times or Le Monde is objectively true, but everything that appears there is, in fact, a disguised form of propaganda for bourgeois class interests.
There is no such thing, the post-modern critic believes, as independence of thought. Objective truth is an illusion. Everyone is promoting class interests of one kind or another. The real lie, in this view, is the claim of objectivity. What is necessary to change the world is not the truth, but another form of propaganda, promoting different interests. Everything is political; that is the only truth that counts.
It is unlikely that Rick Santorum, or many of his followers, have read any post-modern theorists. Santorum, after all, recently called Obama a “snob” for claiming that all Americans should be entitled to a college education. So he must surely loath writers who represent everything that the Tea Party and other radical right-wingers abhor: the highly educated, intellectual, urban, secular and not always white. These writers are the left-wing elite, at least in academia.
But, as so often happens, ideas have a way of migrating in unexpected ways. The blogger who dismissed The Washington Post’s corrections of Santorum’s fictional portrayal of the Netherlands expressed himself like a perfect post-modernist. The most faithful followers of obscure leftist thinkers in Paris, New York or Berkeley are the most reactionary elements in the American heartland. Of course, if this were pointed out to them, they would no doubt dismiss it as elitist propaganda.
Ian Buruma is Professor of Democracy and Human Rights at Bard College and the author of Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents.”
Original article:
I have more to say on this article and will do so soon. It is a teachable moment.

Washington Post attacks Santorum on Dutch euthanasia statement, Post bias trumps facts, Santorum point valid, Citizen Wells awards 4 Orwells

Washington Post attacks Santorum on Dutch euthanasia statement, Post bias trumps facts, Santorum point valid, Citizen Wells awards 4 Orwells

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any partiucular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”…George Orwell, “1984″ 

“Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room.”
“the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.”
“He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia.”
“There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies”
“In it’s second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices”… George Orwell, “1984?

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

Rick Santorum made the following statement at the American Heartland Forum in Columbia, Missouri on February 3, 2012:

“In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia
in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are enthanized
involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country,
because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”

Santorum may have been guilty of hyperbole but his fundamental message rings true.

The Washington Post, as one would expect, attempted to discredit Santorum,  one of the Republican frontrunners.

From the Washington Post February 22, 2012.

“In 2001, The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia, setting forth a complex process. The law, which went into effect a year later,
codified a practice that has been unofficially tolerated for many years.

Under the Dutch law, a doctor must diagnose the illness as incurable and the patient must have full control of his or her mental faculties. The patient must
voluntarily and repeatedly request the procedure, and another doctor must provide a written opinion agreeing with the diagnosis. After the death, a
commission made up of a doctor, a jurist and an ethical expert also are required to verify that the requirements for euthanasia have been met.

Late last year, in the first such case, a 64-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease was euthanized, on the strength of her insisting for years that she wanted the procedure to be done.

Nevertheless, the statistics show it is still a relatively uncommon form of death. In 2010, the number of euthanasia cases reported to one of five special
commissions was 3,136, according to their annual report. This was a 19 percent increase over 2009, but “this amounts to 2.3 percent of all 136,058 deaths in
the Netherlands in 2010,” said Carla Bundy, spokeswoman for the Dutch embassy in Washington.

At the time of the annual report, the commissions had been able to reach conclusions in 2,667 euthanasia notifications reported to the agency and found only nine in which “the physician had not acted in accordance with the due care criteria,” the annual report said. More than 80 percent of the patients were
suffering from cancer; almost 80 percent died at home.

A 2005 study by the New England Journal of Medicine found only a minimal number of the cases — 0.4 percent — in which there was an ending of life without
explicit request by the patient. The study concluded the rate had actually been cut in half since the euthanasia law was passed.

These statistics were so at odds with Santorum’s claims that we wondered how he could have thought that 50 percent of the elderly were put to death
involuntarily (or that 10 percent of all deaths in Holland were from euthanasia.) Spokesmen for Santorum did not respond to a query, but the best we can
tell, he is grossly misinterpreting the results of a 1991 survey known as the Remmelink Report, which was influential in crafting the 2001 law.”

“The Pinocchio Test

There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even
bother to defend his comments.

Four Pinocchios”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html

From Dutch News November 9, 2011.

“A 64-year-old woman suffering from severe senile dementia has become the first person in the Netherlands to be given euthanasia even though she could no
longer express her wish to die, the Volkskrant reports on Wednesday.”

“The case has serious implications for Dutch euthanasia law because it means patients who are no longer able to state their wish can still be helped to die,
Constance de Vries, who acts as a second opinion doctor for euthanasia cases, told the paper.”

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/11/doctors_back_euthanasia_in_sev.php

From Forbes February 26, 2012.

“But Rick Santorum’s Sorta Right About Dutch Euthanasia”
“Not that I particularly care to defend a politician I most certainly don’t support: but the piling in on Rick Santorum over his remarks on the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia in Holland does seem a little over the top.”

“The numbers the Senator puts forward are also wrong: euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, is not 10% of all deaths.

Well, actually, that’s not quite true either. It depends upon how you define these different activities. If we say that voluntary euthanasia is the doctor or
medics ending the life of someone who has requested that their life be ended, involuntary that they use perhaps the same drugs or treatments to deliberately
end the life of someone who has not so requested then no, the two together do not amount to 10% of all deaths.

However, there’s a third category. From an overdose of painkillers (and we should note that European hospitals still use opiates in a manner which I believe
US hospitals do not: heroin is not an unusual treatment for final stage cancer over here although whether you think that diamorphine is quite the same thing
or not is really up to you) through to a complete withdrawal of treatment. That withdrawal including a complete withdrawal of not just food but also
hydration. Whether you consider starving to death a terminal cancer patient euthanasia is again something really up to you. Ditto with your opinions of
dehydration.

If we include these latter then the numbers are rather over 10%. Indeed, withdrawal of nutrition and hydration counts for an observable portion of deaths in the British medical system where we most certainly do not have any form of right to any form of euthanasia.”

“How about a current advisor to the Obama Administration? Even the Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag? A previous Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health? A supporter of health care reform indeed one of the architects of it?

Yes, why not Ezekiel Emanuel? Dr. Emanuel is using the above mentioned Remmelink Report and an update to it as the basis of his figures:

First, the update found that beyond the roughly 3,600 cases of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia reported in a given year, there are about 1,000
instances of nonvoluntary euthanasia. Most frequently, patients who were no longer competent were given euthanasia even though they could not have freely,
explicitly, and repeatedly requested it. Before becoming unconscious or mentally incompetent about half these patients did discuss or express a wish for
euthanasia; nevertheless, they were unable to reaffirm their wishes when the euthanasia was performed. Similarly, a study of nursing-home patients found that in only 41 percent of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia cases did doctors adhere to all the guidelines. Although most of the violations were minor
(usually deviations in the notification procedure), in 15 percent of cases the patient did not initiate the request for physician-assisted suicide or
euthanasia; in 15 percent there was no consultation with a second physician; in seven percent no more than one day elapsed between the first request and the
actual physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, violating the guideline calling for repeated requests; and in nine percent interventions other than
physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia could have been tried to relieve the patient’s suffering.

Second, euthanasia of newborns has been acknowledged. The reported cases have involved babies suffering from well-recognized fatal or severely disabling
defects, though the babies were not in fact dying. Precisely how many cases have occurred is not known. One estimate is that ten to fifteen such cases occur
each year. Whether ethically justified or not, providing euthanasia to newborns (upon parental request) is not voluntary euthanasia and does constitute a
kind of “mercy killing.”

The Netherlands studies fail to demonstrate that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not lead to the nonvoluntary euthanasia of
children, the demented, the mentally ill, the old, and others. Indeed, the persistence of abuse and the violation of safeguards, despite publicity and
condemnation, suggest that the feared consequences of legalization are exactly its inherent consequences.”

“It is of course possible to look at this in various different ways. The most obvious to me is that the Senator’s audience would not have been any less
shocked to be told that 0.5%, or 1%, are, according to the views of that audience, murdered by their doctors than they were by being told it was 5%. On these matters ethical it’s not how often it happens but that it happens at all which shocks. We wouldn’t be all that impressed by the school principal who said he
only killed a couple of the kids, not the 5% of the entire student population that was alleged.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/26/but-rick-santorums-sorta-right-about-dutch-euthanasia/

From the Daily Caller February 21, 2012.


“But the media mocking had a purpose beyond making fun of a conservative. It distracted people from the fact that Santorum’s overarching message is true —
euthanasia consciousness breaches the dikes of morality and exposes the weak and vulnerable to great risk. Indeed, while Santorum overstated some of the
details — the elderly are not flocking to out-of-country hospitals — he was spot-on regarding the charge that many Dutch doctors practice death medicine.
Indeed, anyone paying attention to recent stories from the Netherlands knows that things have gone from very bad to much, much worse.

Official Dutch euthanasia statistics undercount the actual toll: Much was made out of Santorum’s claim of a 10% euthanasia rate when official statistics
generally report that 2-3% of Dutch deaths come from doctor-administered lethal injection. (The same rate in the USA would amount to about 70,000 euthanasia killings per year.) But realize, about 1/3 of the Dutch die suddenly, e.g. by sudden stroke, heart attack, or accident, without significant end-of-life
medical intervention. Take those deaths away from the total count, and using the Dutch government’s estimate, the percentage of euthanasia deaths in cases
involving end-of-life medical treatment rises to 3-4%.

But even that number is far too low. Repeated studies have shown that Dutch doctors fail to report at least 20% (or more) of actual euthanasia deaths, which
means that hundreds of euthanasias aren’t included in the official statistical count. Moreover, about 1% of all Dutch deaths come as a result, to use Dutch
parlance, of being “terminated without request or consent” — e.g. non-voluntary euthanasia. Such deaths are also not technically part of the official
euthanasia count. That gets us up to about 6% of all deaths involving medical treatment at the time of death. Add in a few hundred assisted suicides each
year where the patient takes the final death action rather than being lethally injected, and suddenly, Santorum’s 10% claim becomes far less problematic.

Wait, there’s more: Dutch doctors also kill patients by intentionally overdosing them with pain killers. I am not referring here to death caused as a side
effect of legitimate pain control, but overdosing with the intent of causing death. The exact number of these deaths isn’t known, but the authoritative 1990
government study known as the Remmelink Report found that there were 8,100 deaths from intentional opioid overdose, of which 61% were done without the
request or consent of patients. Now, add in, say, half of the nearly 10% of deaths that occur after Dutch doctors place patients into artificial comas and
deny them food and water — that is, those cases in which palliative sedation is not medically necessary to control otherwise irremediable suffering — and we
see that Santorum’s claim of a 10% euthanasia rate isn’t materially overstated at all.

The Dutch are moving toward euthanizing the elderly: A Dutch elderly dementia patient was recently euthanized in the Netherlands without request and despite
being incompetent — and the killing received the approval of the state. Meanwhile, the Dutch parliament is actively debating whether to expand the practice of assisted suicide to the elderly “tired of life” or who want to die because they “consider their lives complete.” Not coincidentally, a Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) ethics opinion advocated including “loneliness,” loss of social skills and money problems among the factors for allowing the elderly to receive legal doctor-prescribed or doctor-administered death.”

“I could go on and on:

● Dutch doctors have published the Groningen Protocol, a bureaucratic checklist for committing infanticide on terminally ill and seriously disabled babies, as two studies in The Lancet show that 8% of all babies who die in the Netherlands each year (about 90) are terminated by doctors.

● Mobile euthanasia “clinics” will soon be operating to bring euthanasia to the homes of patients whose own doctors say no.

● The Dutch media also mocked Santorum for claiming that thousands of Dutch citizens wear bracelets saying they don’t want to be euthanized. Fair is fair.
Santorum was wrong. They don’t wear bracelets — they carry please-don’t-euthanize-me cards in their wallets or purses.

Enough. Rick Santorum is exactly right in his broader criticism that the Netherlands as leaping head-first off a vertical moral cliff. Maybe if Dutch
reporters paid closer attention to what is happening under their very noses, they’d stop laughing at Santorum’s minor factual errors and start acting like
journalists.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/santorum-more-right-than-wrong-about-dutch-euthanasia/

It is apparent that the Washington Post, just as their counterpart the Times in “1984″ did, is doing their part to take down the opposition to the “party.” The Post let biased reporting interfere with the facts. It is for that reason that I bestow 4 Orwells upon the Washington Post for their Orwellian efforts.

NH primary January 10, 2012, Latest polls Romney 37 %, Paul Huntsman tied for second, Santorum Gingrich tied for third

NH primary January 10, 2012, Latest polls Romney 37 %, Paul Huntsman tied for second, Santorum Gingrich tied for third

Just in from CNN January 10, 2012.

“Polls: Tied up for 2nd and 3rd in NH”

“The final two polls here in the Granite State leading up to Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary both indicate Mitt Romney holding a 19 point lead over the rest of the field of candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

And according to poll surveys, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former Utah governor and former U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman are battling for second place, with former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in a dead heat for third place, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a distant sixth place.

According to the final Suffolk University/7 News tracking poll, released early Tuesday morning, Romney had the support of 37% of likely GOP primary voters in New Hampshire. Romney is very well known here in New Hampshire. He was governor of neighboring Massachusetts for four years last decade, and was often on Boston TV, which much of the heavily populated southern New Hampshire receives. Romney also owns a vacation home in the Granite State and has spent lots of time over the past six years in the state campaigning for himself or for fellow Republicans.

The tracking poll indicates Paul, who’s making his third bid for the White House, is at 18% and Huntsman, who skipped campaigning in Iowa (which held the first contest in the primary caucus calendar) to spend all of his time stumping in New Hampshire, is at 16%. Paul’s two point margin is well within the poll’s sampling error.

Perry, who left the Granite State following the back to back debates this weekend, is now campaigning in South Carolina, which holds its primary on January 21. He’s at one percent in the tracking poll. Seven percent were undecided.

An American Research Group poll released Monday night also indicates Romney grabs the support of 37% of likely GOP primary voters, with Huntsman at 18%, Paul at 17%, Santorum at 11%, Gingrich at 10% and Perry at one percent, with four percent undecided.
Both polls were conducted Sunday and Monday.

The ARG survey indicates Romney leading among registered Republicans, with 46%, followed by Paul at 15%, Huntsman at 13% and Gingrich and Santorum both at 10%. Huntsman and Romney are tied at 25% each among independent voters, with Paul at 20%, Santorum at 13% and Gingrich at 10%

The American Research Group poll questioned 600 likely primary voters in N.H. by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. The Suffolk University tracking poll questioned 500 likely primary voters in N.H. by telephone.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/polls-tied-up-for-2nd-and-3rd-in-nh/

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.