E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Rick Santorum press secretary Alice Stewart called MSNBC to say she misspoke in an interview on Andrea Mitchell Reports today and did not mean to accuse President Obama of "radical Islamic policies."
Instead -- and the tape shows this -- she meant to say, and did repeatedly during the same interview, "radical environmentalist policies."
She was trying to explain Santorum's weekend comments questioning the president's "theology."
Stewart called only moments later -- while the show was on the air -- to say she regretted the slip of the tongue, and to please note that she had misspoken and did not realize until it was pointed out to her that she had used the word "Islamic" by mistake.
The slip occurs at about 1:25 in the video below:
Leave a Comment:
Whoops!That little slip of the tongue was a MASSIVE WHOOPS!
It is nice to see what is actually on these right wingers minds when they dare to go off script!
Ms. Stewart can now resume sucking on her stiletto!
Obama/Biden 2012 - keeping this country out of the hands of radical right wing extremists!
As Amy says, it was a Freudian slip. It reflects the radical Right's reactionary mindset, wherein those who don't agree with them believe in the wrong god.
Hiya Jack!
Good to see you! Hope everything is well with the family! ☺
You know at one time I laughed at this idiot - now he scares the crap out of me!
I didn't realize until listening to his handlers & followers, insanity is INDEED contagious!
Romney continues to flip flop on everything (or does he just play to his audience at the time) and Santorum, or one of his lackeys, continue to "misspeak"all the time. I doubt that this is unintentionable . How about trying to send a subliminal message? Me thinks so. I love it.
Obama in 2012.
Hey, Fiesty,
Slow day so I get to post a bit. I'll have something going up tomorrow, but then I'll be busy again.
Kids are great--wish they'd study more.
Agreed--he scares the crap out of me, too.
Did you see sfcret's post below? If the President had done nothing during the Arab Spring (or even today, with Syria in flames), sfcret would be blaming him for not promoting democracy. The thing is, it's obvious--to everyone but sfcret--that sfcret wants it both ways. Anyone who would say that the President controls the price of oil is either disingenuous or just plain stupid. There's no middle ground.
It's the great conservative waaay! lol
They have to have something to bitch about! ;o)
I'm going with the latter...
Nice to see you, Jack; look forward to your post tomorrow.
I didn't catch all John McCain's comments but apparently he and Lindsay Graham want the US to arm the Syrian rebels. Weren't these the same guys who criticized President Obama for UN involvement in Libya? I'm guessing that if the UN with US urging does move in that direction, these two will be the first to find fault.
Jody: come on now, you make it sound like John McCain and Lindsay Graham are lying, two-faced, back stabbing, self-aggrandizing, insincere, worst type of Evil, Republican, war-hawks, or maybe its just me.
Jody - good to see you, too.
dirp101 - that was very funny!
In a departure from my good friends above, and their take on this unsurprising event:
More likely, Rick Santorum's press secretary Alice Stewart was right on message. She said exactly what she meant to say, for the purpose of casting false doubt and did not mis-speak at all.
This is a political tactic right out of the Rove playbook.
NO-ONE IS FOOLED.
Santorum has released a litany of false attacks on the President, women, non-Republicans, non-Evangelicals, science, and preventive health in the last few days.
No departure here Backhouse!
She knew exactly what she was doing in slipping her 'code' word into the conversation!
There was no misspeak. I watched the interview. Obviously the left wing liberal media doctored the video. (sarcastic...can't help it with this field) Or does that fallback excuse from the right wingnuts work anymore? Backhouse and Feisty: On target. The second I heard it come out of her mouth knew she was she was planting it there. And then of course the inevitable "I misspoke." Sure enough, there it came.
Freudian slip.
We know what she really wanted to say was that the president was an extreme radical Islamic terrorist. After all, it is about riling up the RWNJ conservative christian base, and that is their belief.
Amy,
I agree it was a Freudian slip. Ms Stewart has been the press secretary for Huckabee, M. Bachmann and now Santorum.
What do they all have in common?
They all appeal to the cultural, religious extremists in the GOP party.
I listened to Mitchells interview in total. Ms. Stewart tried to paint Santorum as ONLY a small government conservative. But when the tape of Santorum speaking on prenatal care, education, environmental issues he was emphasising his cultural/religious views.
There was a segment on MPR the other day about the "dog whistle" form of rhetoric in politics. It started with the civil rights back in the early 60. The political language that many southern politicians used has a different frequency that racists heard when talking about states rights.
I see the same thing when Santorum, Bachmann and Perry speak , the use of their words, like "secular theology", "culling the disabled" state or federal funding of schools is" anachronistic" is heard mainstream as extreme or bizarre, but by their base it reinforces their religious extreme world view .
You can't deny what's on the tape, honey.
These people are disgusting.
forget that slip up what about the unsustainable spending?
If you mean Dubya's "unsustainable spending" Buck Naked Sr......we (democrats) will take care of that when we finish paying the emergency medical bills for our economy after your Bush/Cheney economic wrecking team virtually destroyed it.
Oh, we know: You would have preferred our economy be left for dead. No thanks. Pay the bills....and, next time, be more careful (who you vote into power).
particularly if it's another goddamm texas rightwingnut
you mean us, I am a registered DEM, but can't support the current administration, one and done. Finish paying off? when in 200 years, won't happen at the pace the community organizer has us going in, it is unsustainable, get use to that word.
bull-oney!
Buck Naked Sr......
Well, sure the democrat party has a "big tent", but your "registration" (as a democrat) must be a clerical error.
But then, why should you not register as a democrat? Voting in the republican primaries is about as meaningful as voting in this year's democratic primaries.
BTW---What was it you said that made you register a new Newsvine screen name?
Old Buck is on his 5th or 6th moniker...
He continually gets banned!
I don't know I have CRS disease.
I believe she didn't mean to say it. Out loud. In public. Doesn't mean she doesn't think it.
Is Invironmentalist the new RWNJ code word for Islamic? This is the same camp that Invented the blah word, code for blacks.
I never saw Santorum's entire speech but I was quite surprised by his defense on Sunday morning. Was the speech even about Obama's environmental policies? It seemed strange to me that when he was called on his "theology" statement about the President, Santorum tries to justify it by spouting something about the President's "radical environmental policies". Rick Santorum seems to me to be getting all wound up in desperation. The more he leads in the polls, the crazier his rhetoric becomes. I find him enormously scary.
The 21st Century American Inquisition
An Inquisition is a movement by a Church to expunge heresy. From the perspective of our modern era, these movements were almost always Catholic and were conducted throughout history against heretical Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, and non-Christian religions such as Jews and Muslims. Penalties ranged from a slap on the hand, to torture and/or imprisonment, and in severe cases, murder and genocide. The experts tell us the last formal inquisition ended in the 19th century.
Flash forward to the 21st century, a modern era seemingly above those antiquated, backward, and abhorrent inquisitional ages. Yet we clearly have an emergence of a movement to expunge heresy. And true to history, it has been started by the Catholic Church, with Rick Santorum playing the role of Grand Inquisitor, featuring President Obama as the Grand Heretic, with the American public cast as the heretical extras. The movement may not be formalized (Pope approved), but in a uniquely American way, is being expanded to include all religious factions. Welcome to the 21st Century American Inquisition.
Just this weekend, the Grand Inquisitor jumped atop his stump and fabricated lies insinuating President Obama advocates aborting the disabled, and proclaimed Obama’s theology is phony and non-biblical. The Catholic Church claims insurance coverage covering contraception is somehow against their religion. These are just a few examples of the War on Heretics waged by the Catholic Church.
Formal tribunals have not been implemented, yet modern day tools are being manipulated to vilify the heretics. Media outlets, military institutions, charity foundations, and most disturbingly, the U.S. political systems at both the state and federal levels are the tools being used to sway public opinion into acceptance of these Catholic doctrines, and more disturbingly, enactment of laws to support them. If the Grand Inquisitor is successful, abortion and unnatural contraception will be outlawed, life will begin at conception, gay friendly legislation overturned, religious institutions will be exempt from any law they choose not to follow. And much like the Inquisitions of old, our secular government will be utilized to incarcerate the majority of the American public failing to live by these new dogmatic laws.
It is time to stand up to these religious institutions, whether they be Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Evangelical; Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddha. Our Constitution allows the freedom to practice any and all of these faiths. But more importantly, the Constitution grants us protection from the coercion of our government to fit any single brand of theocracy.
Good post, RedDev. Journalists are asking the wrong question. They should go straight to the heart of the matter and ask Sanctimonious Rick where he gets the right to decide whose theology is phony and whose is correct. His arrogance is astonishing. And very scary.
Yea, these Catholic Bishops lost credibility about sexual issues when they stared having sex with young boys. Of course they are against contraception, they don't need it because there is no chance of impregnating these young men they are molesting.
Just keep transferring them from place to place so they can strike again. Then go out and tell everyone how bad birth control is.
These men are sick!
Jack, in answer to your question "where does he get the right to decide........is correct"? Try the Constitution of the United States, you know the 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. It's the same one that gives you the right to call him arrogant and scary.
sfcret,
Are you trying to be stupid? If so, you're succeeding. The Constitution doesn't give him the "right"--which is what I was talking about--to "decide"--again what I was talking about--that someone's theology is phony. The 1st Amendment also guarantees freedom of religion. But for Sanctimonious Rick there is only one religion that is not phony, and it's not Christianity in the broader sense; it is Catholicism in the narrowest sense. Just imagine for one second how you would have responded if President Obama had said that Sanctimonious Rick's religion was "a phony theology". Seriously. Imagine it, sfcret. Because I can hear you screaming in anger and see you foaming at the mouth over it.
Jack, You are the stupid one, where does it say, except in your stupid little post, that Santorum DECIDED anything. Alice Stewart made a statement. Again there was no mention of deciding if someone's theology is phony or not, but he has the right to question it or say what he wants. So get a life and get your left wing head out of your rear end.
BTW, I believe every one can worship as they please, I don't attend any church and have my own beliefs and I don't prescribe to any one faith.
Pssst! sfcret! Listen closely. Put your ear closer to my lips. Don't tell anyone. Okay? (sotto voce. . . I'm not running for president. Sanctimonious is.)
Jack, Listen closely, where does it say that someone running for president doesn't have the same rights as you do because you are not running for president. Your response is really stupid.
You left wing nuts are so easy to get to.
RedDevPS, well said. Santorum is one more representative of the right-wing move to make this country a Theocracy which is totally opposite from what the Constitution says--that same Contitution they claim to love.
For one thing Santorum declared that President Obama's theology (faith) is a "phony" one. I'd say that's being judgemental and a "decider" about what is and is not genuine faith.
You need to catch up on your reading. This whole thing began with Alice Stewart trying to explain away Saint Rick saying the President has a "phony theology". She's trying to say that Saint Rick was speaking about the President's environmental and economic policies. But if you listen to the tape she's referring to, it is clear that Saint Rick was attacking the President's theological beliefs. THAT is the crux of the matter and why the guy is scary.
So who's head is in his rear? Maybe you need to be sure you know what people are talking about before your knee jerks and you reply.
Was there supposed to be a question mark at the end, or was that a rhetorical statement?
If you don't understand--and you obviously don't understand--that a person running for president should be a little more circumspect about not appearing to impose his religion on others, then I can't help you.
Over and out.
I have no problem with Rick Santorum believing whatever he wants, saying whatever he wants, and doing whatever he wants. It's when he starts saying I or anyone else should believe, do or say what he decides is right, that I have a problem. He seems to have set himself up as the arbiter of what other people should say, do or believe, and I do not accept him as that arbiter.
psst - listen closely children - you will both get suspended for a day or 2 unless you lighten up...
sfcret.......
Comments about Santorum's characterization of President Obama's religion as "phony theology" do not question his RIGHT to say such things. Rather, they question his (lack of) standing (and judgment) for making such assertions.
Let's say someone here were to say that YOUR religion is tantamount to Satanism or that YOU support the Catholic clergy's "right" to molest little boys, or any other such unfounded assertions.
Any such person might (under certain circumstances) have the RIGHT to say such things (about you). But, all others would also have the RIGHT to consider those making such assertions to be SELF-RIGHTEOUS BIGOTS unqualified even to teach Sunday school.
Don't you agree? If not, perhaps you do not listen closely enough.
BTW---How do you feel about the end of "Don't ask, Don't tell" ? Surely, you have an opinion since (as you seem to want everyone to know) you claim to be a sergeant first class retired.
Santourum acts more like a cult leader who hates others that don't agree with his views.
Ian, I did not support ending the DADT policy as adopted by the military. I said several times on these discussions that I felt the Defense of Marriage Act should have been addressed first and I also feel the gay rights movement used the military as starting point for ending the DOMA.
I feel gays serving openly in the military now are more discriminated against now than ever before. Example: 1) Even if they marry in a state allowing gay marriages they can not get military benefits such as housing, PX/commissary privileges, military travel on PCS moves, and numerous other benefits that straight couples get.
So you tell me what did the gays really accomplish by the ending of DADT? The Defense of Marriage Act will eventually be repealed but in my opinion that should have came first.
Well sfcret, perhaps you also feel Americans (of African descent) suffer more now than they did before the Civil Rights Act, or even before the Emancipation Proclamation and, in your generous benevolence, condescend to "protect" them from the unforeseen consequences of these historical documents.
Why don't we (really YOU) leave it to those most directly affected by these legislations to gauge whether they are desirable (on those grounds) ?
Apparently, there is such a thing as being socially tone deaf.
Ian, You didn't answer my question, what benefit was derived from ending DADT? As I mentioned, the Defense of Marriage Act has to be repealed first. What part of no military benefits for married gays don't you get? I suppose in your feeble mind if someone can openly say "I am gay", that is making great strides. It appears you don't consider benefits for one group and not for another group is o.k. and should not be considered discrimination.
Further, don't even equate the rights of gays with the civil rights movement of the 60s. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
sfcret......
Let's assume your question is serious.
1. Gay soldiers can (now) serve OPENLY without fear of court martial and dishonorable discharge. 2. The military branches no longer must expend human and other resources in legal proceeding against OPENLY gay soldiers. 3. The services can now benefit from the considerable talents of gay Americans who are unwilling to live deceptively. 4. It corrects a long standing and obviously flawed (military) policy of discriminating against a class of Americans.
The analogy between Americans (of African descent) and non-heterosexual Americans is, indeed, apt. They both are classes of Americans who, by no fault of their own, have been (and are) persecuted on account of nothing more than their differences from the majority.
You are an anachronism sfcret. Thankfully, human society is moving up and away from your antiquated and prejudiced notions. Liberals, as usual, are leading the way to liberty and justice for ALL.
BTW----Now, you might try answering the question directed to you.
Ian,
I guess, from your post, you think being able to walk around a military post and say you are "gay" is a benefit. I don't see it as a benefit, I see it as nonproductive. Again, I said the DOMA should have been taken on first, since the military has to comply with DOMA, thereby denying people of different life styles different benefits. I also believe most gays in the military agree with me. From the information I have seen few gays are coming out openly since they are still denied BENEFITS.
BTW, if you are talking about the weird so called "religious question", it is to stupid to even apply to. I really don't care what people think about my religion, since I don't belong to any church. Further, no one I know is o.k. with molesting by anyone.
sfcret said:
Who do you think cares whether you see the repeal of DADT as nonproductive or not? Certainly, nobody that matters.
Apparently, enough (that do matter) did and do (see it as a benefit) that it (DADT) is now dead and buried. YOU won't be resurrecting it (noting that you, elsewhere, have conceded that Obama will likely be reelected).
So, like civil and women's rights, it's something you can opine about endlessly without effect.
BTW---Do you have any close family members (or others you actually care about) who are gay?
Apparently, you don't know anyone in the Catholic church hierarchy responsible for protecting their pedophiles for decades. Be advised: others do.
Ian,
Apparent you can't read or understand English. No where did I say I was anti-gay. I said that the DOMA should have been repealed before the military was forced to accept openly gay members. It was a decision by the President as Commander-in-Chief and Congress, not a popular vote of the people.
It appears you are happy and think it is a great accomplishment that one can run around the parade ground or anywhere else proclaiming they are gay. Where are the BENEFITS, like housing, separation allowance, PCS moves for dependents, PX/Commissary privileges? Those you talk about that cared about gays in the military are the same ones that felt they didn't deserve the same benefits as straights do, otherwise they would have addressed the issue of DOMA. BTW, do you even know what DOMA is?
Quit making everyone who don't agree with you out to be anti-gay. Yes, I do have close friends that are gay and they agree that gays are still 2d class citizens in the military because of the DOMA. Get a life and get your head out of your rear end.
Just a matter of time before the so-called Freudian slip becomes full blown and intentional. Its who they are!
Obama/Biden 2012
Leave it up to the left wing nuts to make a big deal out of nothing. Even the tape showed that she meant to say "radical environmentalist policies."
BTW, we now have Radical Islamic leaders in Egypt, Libya, & Yemen and will end up with the same in Syria. Since Obama has been President the Middle East has became more of a power keg. Let's face it, this President is a failure in foreign policy.
Reminder "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID," and now we can add the "PRICE OF GAS."
So you prefer the conservative nuclear option to deal with the Middle East?
Red, Typical left wing response. Show me where any conservative recommended the nuclear option to deal with the Middle East?
You see sfcret, this is where the arrogance of the right amuses me. You think it is Obama's job to install leaders into other countries that overthrow their governments, regardless of the wishes of the citizens. And when he doesn't install the puppets YOU want, you pull out the accusation card calling him a failure.
By the way, a nuclear option doesn't always have to mean nuclear bombs. A nuclear option could also mean to walk into those countries and install YOUR puppets.
Hi Sarge,
What can any President do in the short term about the price of oil/gas? That is a long term problem that requires a long term solution which must be a result of Congressional actions of which some may include some spending.
"We need an all-out, all-in, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every source of American energy — a strategy that's cleaner and cheaper and full of new jobs," our President said in the SOTU.
sfcret, the middle east became a powder keg in March 2003. Haven't you been paying attention?
Hi Dennis,
There is not much a President can do in the short term, but our problem is we are always kicking domestic exploration down the road. Politics play to much of a part in our energy policy. We have to use the resources in our own country and quit relying on foreign sources. Maybe more use of natural gas, which the U.S. have an abundant supply of. More oil exploration on federal lands, most now is on private land.
There are risks in everything, but we do currently have thousands of pipelines running through every state in the union. The risk cost is small compared to the benefits. Nothing is completely safe nor will it ever be.
BTW, your quote from the SOTU is great, but it's action that needs to be taken and not just talk. President Obama has said the same thing in every SOTU speech. Promises and talk don't get the job done, taking action does.
kingofmyhill, Maybe you haven't been paying attention or maybe you are not old enough but the Middle East has been a powder key since 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by Radical Islamic Muslims.
But encouraging more Radical governments don't help the situation in the Middle East, which we did by encouraging the overthrow of the governments in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. The middle East is closer to a complete blow up than anytime in my 71 years of life.
Sarge,
The addresses were to Congress – what have they done to accomplish any of our Presidents request or vision for domestic energy growth. The first license to build a Nuclear Power Plant since Three Mile Island was just issued – Progress at last!
Our President has pushed for a greatly increased exploration and use of natural gas and there have been some recent results with increased extractions. Now we need the infrastructure to support Natural Gas and Electric with Filing & Charging stations.
People are not going to convert or purchase unless they are convenient to fill-up and maintain.
As for the pipeline - it doesn't help with pricing since it is at world market prices.
The bottom line is Santorum will never ever be elected as President of the United States. I repeat never, because this country will never elect a social conservative as President.
Most would agree that the Middle East has been a powder keg since 1948 when Israel was established as a nation.
and people said a black would never be elected.
buck you have your head so far up your a$$ you can't see for all the s#!t. Plus it really is spewing out your mouth now.
Dennis,
The President has really done little to push our energy policies except for billions in alternatives such as his green energy policies, which have cost much more than they have given in benefits. I am all for alternative energies but we need to use the fossil fuels we know are there and available. If you check you will find that it has been the democrats that have blocked more nuclear power plants, drilling on federal lands, off shore, etc.,. It was the Obama administration that stopped the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and has slowed the process for new oil leases.
Congress does not license nuclear power plants, nor do they issue drilling permits. They can provide funds for new fuel technology which they have. FYI, over 10 years ago California has put electrical outlets in malls and other public parking areas for the purpose of charging electric automobiles. How ever I feel that the feasibility of electric vehicles catching on, especially at the cost of the vehicle, is far down the road. Especially in states like CA, TX, and most other western states. I know Toyota is coming out next month with its electric car but at a cost of around $40K.
Have a good President's day Dennis.
The most frustrating thing about this interview is Andrea Mitchell not calling Alice Stewart out for the slip! She should have stopped right there, stopped Stewart in the middle of her scripted responses and challenged the statement.
Republicans just need lids for their smear containers so they will read the label before applying.
Misspoke? Seriously, how many people do you know who would confuse the word "Islamic" for "environmental"? Sorry, Ms. Stewart, but that comment reflects a mindset on the far right that we have been hearing from your side for three years; apologies are empty words when said out of necessity.
the freudian slip is when you say what you MEAN even if the text reads OTHERWISE. She MEANT "Islamic" no matter what the TEXT SAID
Isn't this the same spokesperson who used to be with the Bachmann campaign? Maybe it explains some of Bachmann's statements.
Steeler Fan,
You are right and before that she was the press spokesperson for Huckabee.
Her job is to water down their extreme rhetoric and make is saleable to the mainstream.
She really meant radical scary black, blackity, black black blacketee black policies. but it came out islamist.
aamom,
I think you meant 'blah' people...?
I think she meant the n word, but like the school teacher in Chicago she may get suspended.
I. asked it in another Post:Would a President Saint Torum (May the Flying Spaghetti Monster save us all ) so.......
Would a President Saint Torum kneel and kiss the Pope's ring?
Be fair, people. She misspoke. The message Santorum is actually trying to push is ridiculous and deserves to be torn apart, so focus on that and not on a silly mistake. It makes you look petty and only appears to give some validity to Santorum's complaints.
Secularism is not a theology. It is one of the key foundations of our constitution and republic. Let Santorum continue attacking it, and let's have that debate. He will lose if rational people keep their eyes on the ball and don't get sidetracked by peripheral nonsense like this.
Can someone tell Santorum that McCain tried to make people scared of Obama in '08 and it didn't work then either and that was before he was president for 4 years. Republicans are people of very few ideas.
I'm an Obama supporter and I'll let this one go as a mistake because she's hot.
His whole campaign is about his religion. He objects to the government having any say over us, but it is ok if the Catholic church does. I have no problem with his faith choice as I was reared Catholic, but politics should be secular. One can be ethical and competent without belonging to any one religion.
Here's a reminder for Santorum hypocrites:
Thou shalt not lie
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself
Judge not, lest ye be judged
"Family values" are NOT part of the Bible; the ten commandments are what hangs all the laws of the prophets.
Jesus called out the hypocrites in a temple, as I am calling out the Santorum hypocrites...Either get a clue and read the Bible or go back to your rooms! I can talk religion as well as Santorum, so bring it on.
She clearly meant "environmental radicalist" and it came out "radical Islamic." I doubt it was deliberate. It would have been too risky and she must have known she'd be called on it -- as she has been. It MAY have been a genuine "Freudian slip," in which the unconscious makes its presence known through a speech error, which Freud called parapraxis. It's just as likely that she'd been speaking for Santorum for a long time, was tired, and clumsily substituted one frequently used catch phrase for another. Obama did the same thing when he said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in arresting a black professor.
That doesn't make her right in the rest of the interview. Obama as a "radical environmentalist"? That's pretty funny. They must be thinking of Teddy Roosevelt. Nor did Obama "nix" the pipeline through Nebraska. He nixed the idea of running it directly through Nebraska's huge aquifer, with the support of most Nebraskans, including their Republican governor. Obama wants the pipeline to circumvent the aquifer and wants to wait until the environmental impact statement is prepared.
That's not radical environmentalism. That's just common sense. Accidents do happen -- unless we've forgotten the Deep Horizon blow out, the Exxon Valdez, and the other ecological disasters we've been through. And after all, if there is, say, a year's delay -- so what? If the oil is valuable now, with prices rising, imagine how much more valuable it will be a year from now.
An expeditious move would have been for the president to allow the pipeline to run straight through the aquifer (which supplies not just Nebraska but parts of some neighboring states), point to his decision, and say, "See? Screw the environmental extremists! I'm creating more jobs!" It would help him in the next election. Instead he chose to respond to categorical imperatives (what's the moral thing to do?) instead of hypothetical imperatives (what's in it for me?).