Santorum for McCain

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum a couple of months ago said devastating things about John McCain, such as this:

… John McCain was the leader on the other side of the aisle [on the comprehensive immigration bill]. John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history, because having come from Arizona, knowing the strength of the Hispanic community, that we were going to be seen as racists, and he wasn’t going be part of that, that he was not a racist, and that if we were for tougher borders, it was a racist thing. Look, John McCain looks at things … through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board, and accepts that predisposition that if you are not, if you stand for conservative principles, there’s some genetic defect.

Now Santorum endorses McCain for president.

Update: In his soon to be published book, The Real McCain, Cliff Schecter reports an incident in 1992 in which McCain lost his temper with his wife Cindy and called her a shockingly vulgar name in public.

- end of initial entry -

John D. writes:

Not that I support McCain, but three anonymous reporters that never reported the incident anywhere? Rumormongering at best, and certainly not worthy of being posted on your site, IMHO.

As for the Santorum switch, it’s just another nail in the coffin for conservatism.

LA replies:

Well, I thought Schecter gave an adequate explanation of that. He talked to reporters who were there and heard it, but who didn’t report it at the time because it was too crude for public consumption. So his reporting on it is primary reporting, not secondary reporting.

However, looking at the quote again, I have agree with you that the anonymity is a problem. These are “three reporters” who were there, who tell Schecter they heard McCain say this to his wife, yet they won’t allow their names to be used. If they’re not willing to stand behind their information, why should we believe them?

However, on third thought, it’s three reporters who are agreeing as to the same fact. While one anonymous source would not be proper, I think three anonymous sources, all reporters, agreeing to the same fact is arguably something that can be reported.

Joseph C. writes:

So, Rick Santorum endorses John McCain because (1) he agrees with him 80 percent of the time, (2) he will make better appointments, and (3) he’s not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Did I not predict exactly this scenario two months ago?

Where is Santorum’s honesty? Why the charade of the past six months? Did he just figure out now that McCain (1) agrees with him 80 percent of the time, (2) will make better appointments, and (3) is not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I used to take him seriously, but he is just another lemming following the embarrassing John McCain off a cliff.

John D. replies:

“If they’re not willing to stand behind their information, why should we believe them?”

Exactly. Schecter is a far-left loon who wouldn’t recognize truth if it bit him. Without solid proof of some sort, I wouldn’t want to be caught dead repeating any accusation by him—even if it did put a stick in McCain’s eye. ;-)

LA replies:

But in my posted version of my reply to you, I also add that Schecter found THREE reporters saying that same thing. That would tend to overcome the problem with the anonymity.

I’ve never heard of Schecter before. But if he found three Arizona reporters who said this, that arguably rises to the point where it becomes legitimate to report it.

John D. replies:

But ALL three are still anonymous. He could say a thousand people heard it but if not one of them steps up to the plate to tell the tale, he still has no proof,. Additional anonymous sources do not further justify. The statement he has made has not been substantiated, as it stands.

John D. continues:

I suppose I’m looking at the source for this and his credibility is dubious, in my opinion. But he does name a campaign aide and a consultant, so I guess it’s covered. Thanks for indulging my discord.

LA replies:

Well, don’t be too quick to concede. He names the campaign aide and the consultant as having been there, but he doesn’t say that they are his sources. He only mentions the unnamed reporters as his sources:

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you ____.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

Another thing to be said here is that Mrs. McCain’s reported behavior was shockingly bad and would make any man lose his temper. In public, in front of many people, she twirls her husband’s hair and tells him he’s losing his hair. That’s dissing him and emasculating him. He had a right to blow up. That doesn’t excuse his shocking statement to her, of course, assuming he made it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Send