E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Joshua Lott / Reuters
Rick Santorum looks on during pheasant hunting in Adel.
By NBC's Alex Moe
ADEL, Iowa – For the second time in as many months, Rick Santorum went pheasant hunting with one of Iowa’s most prominent conservatives but with no news of an endorsement.
With just about a week out from the Jan. 3rd Iowa caucuses, Iowa Congressman Steve King joined Santorum for a day of hunting near Des Moines.
“Well it's the day after Christmas -- not a particularly great day to go and do a whole lot of town hall meetings,” Santorum told reporters following a roughly three-hour hunt. “I just thought we'd do something that is fun, something that I enjoy doing and I know the folks here in Iowa enjoy doing also and doing with some good friends.”
Many GOP presidential candidates have been trying to court Rep. King to publicly back them, but none have been successful – not even pheasant hunts have changed his mind, including two with Santorum and one with Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
"I want my head and my heart to come together,” Rep. King said about a pending endorsement and noted there may still be one before the caucus.
NBC's Kristen Walker reports.
Santorum, who hunted pheasants, quail and chukars while wearing a bright orange vest and hat, told reporters that his campaign is the one with “momentum” going into the first-in-the-nation caucus next week.
“I feel very, very good that all the work that we've done, all the groundwork we've done, the foundation we've laid, is coming and working just perfectly,” the former Pennsylvania senator said. “We feel very good. We have a lot of energy on the ground. Our campaign is clearly the one that is rising right now and has the momentum.”
Santorum, who is still polling in the single digits depsite having visited all 99 counties and spent more time in Iowa than any other candidate, believes there are actually three primaries going on: Libertarian (Ron Paul), moderate (Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney), and conservative (Santorum, Perry and Michele Bachmann).
“You've got three folks running as strong conservatives, I think if we win that primary we're in very good shape as the non-Newt-Romney,” the former Senator said.
The one prediction Santorum had for reporters: “We're going to surprise a lot of people with how well we do on caucus night.”
Leave a Comment:
Santorum is trying to put Ron Paul into his own 'libertarian' primary, because Ron Paul is much more conservative, and would win a 'conservative' contest hands down. Doesn't work that way, though.
There is something so phony and off-putting about Romney. I don't trust that man.
MATT: Yes, there is indeed something untrustworthy and unlikable about the department store mannequin and I'm hoping many millions of GOP voters feel that way come election time. There is not a single issue he has not reversed himself on and his lame excuse for why his "RomneyCare" is fine but "ObamaCare" isn't is absolutely priceless. Obama used the very same M.I.T. professor to design his plan and he is on record as saying there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two of them.
Say what you want about many of his positions, but the hunting part of Santorum is real. Now if the was Obama or Biden . . . .
Romney IS a bit plastic. He comes out of the Democrat mold of polititians, Look good, Say the right things, and have others do the dirty work of undermining and slamming opponents.
To vote for him, I would have to have no positive, relevant third party candidate, and total negatives on Obama. That's the quality of the candidates as I see it from ALL parties.
Matt L-1901963
Is there any politician anywhere you would trust??
They lie to get elected then take money to stay elected.
Matt: You would prefer, what exactly. A dictator??
ap- why are those the two choices? romney or a dictator?
romney is a liar and a mormon and santorum doesn't feel a man and his wife should have an expectation of privacy in the bedroom. they both suck.
Santorum has about twice the chance of being elected as I do. This article is just MSNBC trying to trot out this imbecile as a front runner.
Do you hear that? That is the sound of inevitability that Obama will be your President for 4 more years. Get used to it teabaggers. No one wants 4 more years of your crazy.
And when asked why he didn't invite Dick Cheney for the hunt, Santorum said he was trying to save face.
If Ricky would be the GOP nominee I'd start believing in God. Then President Obama wins by 15!
StTP is right, doesn't matter who the Republicans put up against President Obama as the Republican will lose. The election is set.
you mean set like the first GW election?
Just a thought, why don't they invite all of the potential nominees to the party and then have Dick Cheney show up as a surprise guest. The old axiom of "killing two birds with one stone" would never seem more appropriate. But in this case, it could be six or seven birds with one stone. LOL
Translation: I, Rick Santorum, am just as much of a religious fundamentalist as Bachmann or Perry, but I'm not as obviously out of touch with facts and reality as Michelle, or as obviously mentally challenged as the other Rick. Come on, Tea Party. It's my turn! I mean, Gingrich, really? You're barking up that tree?
Let's make headlines guys: Santorum cleaned up with TP! No, wait...argh! Curse you, internet!
The photo op looks like Santorum trying too hard. It makes him look young and silly. What stupid came up with THIS idea?!
At least he didn't shoot any of his friends.
Give him time, give him time.
Makes him look like a young Elmer Fudd.
I guess Santorum is trying to get lubed up for Super Tuesday. He'll be frothing mad when he finds out there's only really one primary.
What I think is interesting is that all the GOPretenders have stolen Ron Pauls platform that he has been touting for thirty years. I honestly think, even though there are things I don't agree with, that Ron Paul, or someone like Ron Paul is what every American wants. Someone with integrity that can't be bought.
Yes, every American wants a blatant racist who believes in a whole host of really preposterous conspiracy theories.
Integrity? I wonder why Ron Paul voted against increasing the minimum wage? It passed against Ron Paul's wishes. You and I both know that only corporations and not the people benefit from keeping wages low. Just like the corporate pizza guy, he wanted to get rid of minimum wage altogether. You know, not for the people.
Explain to me again how he is against corporations and for the people cause he sure doesn't vote that way. That is, for a man with such integrity.
Well, whatever you have been told without researching the man. But, at this point, I will choose anyone who can't be bought.
I'm dubious about the racist claims but at least he's not a war cheerleader like . . . pretty much every other GOP candidate in the race.
I researched his voting record and it just didn't seem to match the rhetoric coming out of his mouth. I find it hard to trust someone who says one thing and then votes another.
Like the last time he had a chance to vote on a deadline for ending the Iraq war he voted with the republicans to continue the war with no end in sight. The deadline bill did pass, but Bush vetoed it. I think that someone really against the war would have voted with the Democrats to set a deadline for ending the war. But the supposedly pacifist Ron Paul didn't vote for ending the war. I want to hear the spin for that one. Anybody?
Hey Americans First-3238795
I've got a website for ya..
projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/
this is The U.S. Congress Votes Database which is posted by the Washington Post. It documents every vote and member of the House and Senate since 1991.
Dr Paul has been in the House since '95, why don't you do your research and tell us which vote it was rather than spew talking points without any facts to back your claims? Or are you just an establishment shill who we can easily ignore?
Spin? You echoed the spin. The guy didn't fall in line with the war deadline vote because he didn't vote for war with Iraq in the first place. Basically it was like voting to maintain the war until that point when, just like today in Afghanistan, he would prefer to bring the troops home immediately. The vote you most likely are referring to was for a DEADLINE; not for open-ended war.
john-737278
They are trying to steal parts of his platform, because it is a solid platform that has a TON of support with the people, but it just doesn't wash because it doesn't fit with their known positions. When they try to talk about them they come of as so out of touch it's laughable.
EarlyOut-1524710
In the post just prior to this one I absolutely destroyed the "Racist" argument, if you really want I'll repost it here if you cant go back one article and read it.
Egilman: Ton of support?? Ron Paul???? What a joke...the old man has never won a single primary or caucus in his Presidential runs. YOU may have just discovered him, but at 79--he's not exactly the new kid on the block. In all his time in Congress, he's not passed one piece of legislation. There's a reason. Even his own colleagues think he's a loon. yes,he's also a racist if the (thankfully) ineffective lunatic part isn't enough for you (you can argue all you want...just because he didn't write it means nothing...he didn't disavow any of the repeated racist rants put out in his name...and did nothing at all to stop them.) He's got no chance in hell and it sure isn't because people don't know this nutcase...
I have a question for Ron Paul supporters. For months now you have used a Libertarian/Paul fallback position on many issues called "personal responsibility". I believe that it is a huge part of the Libertarian philosophy.
So, on to the question. When shown what was published in his newletters, vile and quite rascist comments, Ron Paul has said that he didn't write those, never read them, was not aware of them until 10 years later, and didn't even know who wrote and included them in newsletters that bear his name, and were sent to his constituents.
The question is not: Is Ron Paul a rascist? On that, I am happy to take him at his word. The real question is: When will Ron Paul take personal responsibility for disgusting comments that were published in his name? When will he live up to that mantra of libertarianism? You all say he has principles. Isn't it time for him to show them?
The reply Jon,
He has on many occasions, on national TV even. (Wolf Blitzer was the questioner also)
Basically the newsletter used his name, when he found out what they were actually printing he had it stopped. he disavowed it back then and still does today. It's political fodder because he is leading in Iowa, all these people are claiming it's going to destroy him, but these newsletters have been a known comodity for some time now, they are not the emotional hit everyone wants to make them out to be.
His response is somewhat convincing, but in the end, not completely. There are too many of these comments to say he ever had them stopped. He has even said that he didn't know about them for many years.
I don't for a minute think that he is a racist. But some of his ideas do ultimately support racism. Think back to early in the Civil rights movement and you will remember that one of the seminal moments was a sit-in by a group of blacks at a JC Penney lunch counter. Ron Paul, and his son, believe that JC Penney, a private company, has the right to discriminate against anyone they choose, for whatever reason. He says he very much admires Rosa Parks, but fails to understand that the city could simply contract with a private bus firm to run the city buses, and Paul's libertarian philosophy has Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus once again.
On close examination, most libertarian positions fail when confronted by reality. That is why they have rarely been tried and quickly abadoned when they were.
Where is his catch for the day. Having problems finding birds. I tell you google 'pheasant climate change' and read what real hunters say about how the environment is changing for pheasants. It's happening for everything. But the hunters are right. The gop don't care.
Santorum is completely disconnected from reality. It is almost endearing how childlike his neediness is. Knock, knock, Rick. If they wanted you, you would know by now. You risk moving from endearing to pitiful.
Meh, I'm a Huntsman supporter. He's conservative, yet can win the White House and put Washington Politicians in there place and get something done. None of the other GOP Candidates can do that...I like Ron Paul in many ways, but he'd never beat Obama and even if he did he'd not get anything done in Washington. Whats the benefit of being right if you can't get anything done?
This poor, terrified, little homophobe is more delusional than Bachmann when it comes to his chances in reality.
How in God's name can this man be considered to be a serious candidate for POTUS? What makes him a Special Person whom we would be proud to be called Our Leader?
This guy needs to just give up. He is running as an also also ran. He's a nobody in a race of notworthys.
Wow! What a slow news day.
Too bad, they did not invite John Corzine, and several of the Criminial Banksters of the NWO, to help "jump" a few Birds!! A good ole fashioned "Snipe Hunt" , one could say!! Ciao
FORMER Senator Rick Santorum is what he will Maybe be remembered for
Nothing else .....
Byeeee Idiot
To be serious for a moment, Santorum has a point, albeit a weak one. If you combine him, Perry, and Bachmann, you basically get Mike Huckabee, who is actually a virtual clone of Newt Gingrich.
However, because they won't drop out or consolidate until after Iowa, they each have no real chance of winning there and establishing any real momentum as Huckabee did in 2008. Whichever one stays in the hunt the longest will pick up support and gain in the polls, but probably not be a major factor in the race, except perhaps to split the AbR vote enough to get Mittens the nomination. As distasteful as that idea is, it's better than a possible [shudder] Gingrich presidency.
Anything is better for the republicans than a grinch candidacy, But, that anyone had better be Dr Paul if they expect to win in November.
Even if Dr Paul doesn't get the nomination and stays home, his supporters will either stay home or write him in. They will NOT vote for an establishment candidate, and they will NOT vote for Obama.
I personally will stay home because there is no qualified candidate on either side.
(holding the office does not mean you are qualified, and if you libbies claim that Obama is because he holds the office then you cannot claim that Bush wasn't either.)
Please - stay home.
Cheney wasn't invited???
Oops,.. that's right.. Sorry..
At least he did not shoot anyone , in the face .
So let's go kill some wildlife instead!!!
Wish he would've taken Dick hunting with him. I hear he's an excellent shot.
poor birds. just flying around trying survive and some rich guy starts killing them for fun and political points. hunters...please don't reply how ethical and nature friendly your blood-thirsty hobby is. i really don't care. i feel sorry for the poor animals who are slaughtered for your entertainment.
Back in November, when Newt Gingrich was comparing himself to Margaret Thatcher and Charles De Gaulle, but before he suggested sending federal marshals to arrest activist judges, I wrote it was even money Newt would say something "fatally crazy" before the Iowa caucuses.
Defining fatally crazy is particularly difficult this year as Michele Bachmann is still campaigning and faux-libertarian, Ron Paul is leading some polls. To elaborate, there is general election (GE) fatal –anything Ron Paul says that doesn't involve leaving Iraq, for example. Gingrich delves into this category about twice a year, more frequently if he's promoting a book, or running for president.
Well, everytime I think that's got to be the one...he adds another to the pile. Dumping child labor laws? Check. Arresting and/or ignoring federal judges you don't agree with? Check. Palestinians are a "made up" people? Check. War with Iran? Check. If you were TRYING to cut up with the least qualified candidates for President in the United States, you could not possibly do better than this field. And they say OBAMA isn't qualified????
Little Ricky has eight children. That means there's about an 80% chance that one of them is gay. I wonder if he knows which one that his?
Disgusting spectacle, all these know-nothing Repubs falling all over themselves trying to suck up to endorsement-peddlers. And Rep. King wants "his head and his heart to come together" on one Right-Winger... how's THAT going to happen when it hasn't happened already? Oh, right, this is Iowa - he'll "pray on it" until some little voice inside his loony head tells him, aw what the hell, just pick one. They ALL fall short of your Hyper-Conservative Ideal Right-Winger." Yeah - you can be sure that "God" will have something to do with his momentous decision, and he'll have to recount it all in detail for the Iowa voters.