Skip to comments.Santorum lied. Spector said he did not promise to back Bush's Supreme Court picks for endorsement.
Posted on 02/23/2012 9:00:30 PM PST by mitchell001
According to today's video interview between CNN's John King and Arlen Spector at the link below, Rick Santorum lied about Arlen Spector's promise to support George Bush's Supreme Court nominees in exchange for Santorum's endorsement, during the nationally televised debate on CNN Wednesday. This is damaging video evidence of Santorum's lie about this important reason given by Santorum for supporting the liberal Arlen Spector over the conservative Patrick Tomey is at the following link. http://www.breitbart.tv/specter-santorum-lied/ During the debate, Romney claimed that if Tomey was elected as the GOP Senator from Pennsylvania instead of Spector, Obamacare would not have passed by 50 to 49, but would have failed by 50 to 49. Spector voted for Obamacare and Tomey would have voted against it.
Such a bald head lie, as if Toomey would not have supported Bush’s choices!
And we know Specter told the truth because???
So Freepers are going to believe Specter now?
That assumes that Arlen Spector is not lying.
Phil Spector ain’t running, hence no reason to lie!
He’s a Democrat and they never lie...
Santorum and Bush should have supported Toomey. Santo should have told Romney if he had not provided the blueprint for Obamacare then it could not have passed. Thanks Mitt and many other Rinos.
Supporting and getting moderate democrats to cast their vote are two different things.....
There is no way on earth I believe anything Arlene Sphincter says.
If anybody's lying in this scenario, my bet is on Arlen.
We should all understand that Arlen is trying to maintain the illusion of integrity.
I remember this as it unfolded. Specter was head of the Judiciary Committee and there was concern that Bush’s judges couldn’t be approved. Like it or not, Spector was a key to getting those judges.
Whatever back room deals were made, those judges did get approved.
Last night, Mitt Romney explained his 1992 vote for former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary as a vote against Bill Clinton. “I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot,” he said. “And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took.” Romney’s bottom-line? “I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot.”
Okay, fair enough. Romney is saying he’s a Republican, but given the chance to vote against Bill Clinton in 1992, he decided to meddle in the Democratic primary. If he’d had the opportunity to vote for a Republican in the Republican primary, he’d have jumped at the chance, but lacking that, he voted Democratic.
Seems reasonable, except there was a Republican primary. But it’s not just the facts that get in the way of Mitt Romney’s explanation. It’s Mitt Romney himself, because just about each time he’s explained the vote, he’s explained it differently.
On December 15, 1993, The Boston Globe reported that Romney said “he couldn’t recall” for whom he had voted. Six weeks later, the Globe reported that Romney “confirmed he voted for former US Sen. Paul Tsongas.” Why? Because “favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton.” Then in October of 1994, The Washington Post reported that Romney “publicizes his brief stint as a Democrat to support ex-senator Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary.”
Flash forward 13 years to February, 2007 and Romney offered a completely different rationale in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, Id vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.”
So Romney has gone from not being able to recall who he voted for, to saying he voted for Tsongas because he liked Tsongas, to saying his vote for Tsongas shows he is bipartisan, to saying he voted for Tsongas to oppose Bill Clinton, to saying he voted for Tsongas to weaken the Democrats, to saying he only voted for Tsongas because he didn’t have a chance to vote for a Republican. Except, of course, he did.
So what does Mitt Romney really believe? Nobody really knows. And that probably includes Mitt Romney himself.
Why would Arlen Spector lie about this on national TV? The real question is how is Rick Santorum going to reply to Spector’s claim that he made no promise about supporting Supreme Court nominees. Santorum has a major problem here. Conservative voters have a major problem. They may be backing a seriously damaged candidate in Rick Santorum.
“And we know Specter told the truth because???’
We don’t, but that doesn’t stop anyone here who has another candidate. Someone thinks that Specter is telling the truth because Toomey would have supported Roberts and Alito. What the genius is missing is that Santorum probably believed that Specter was more likely to be re-elected than Toomey was to get elected.
In case anyone is wondering, my candidate is James A. Garfield. He’ll never tell a lie or do anything unconstitutional, which is more than I can say for the others.
W supported him first. Someone should ask W whether he was given any assurances. They also should ask Rove, not that I’d trust his answer, but he deserves to be on the record. W may or may not give an answer, but he won’t flat out lie.
That weasel. After Santorum stuck his neck out and backed him in his election, which cost Santorum big time politically, he stabs him in the back.
Specter is a Romney-style RINO, that’s why. He is also probably senile by this point.
Ditto on that. I remember the 2004 campaign as well, being a PA resident. We wanted to keep Specter in as the head of that committee. He was an ass, but he did stick with Bush’s nominees and we have two awesome conservative judges now as e result of that.
Specter turned out to betray us all after the 08 election scared him. I don’t believe anything he says anymore.
And why would we beleive Spector?
Romney did come out early for Christine O’Donnell over her liberal opponent and he came out early for Nicky Haley over her liberal opponent. Those were risky endorsements but he backed them up with campaign time and money.
Look, we don’t have to support Romney but we can recognize good and don’t have to constantly find ways to denigrate the guy. We also don’t need to denigrate Newt or Santorum.
Santorum wasn't on the Judiciary Committee. But Specter was. And, if he won re-election in 2004, he would be the incoming Chairman -- replacing Orrin Hatch.
Leaving aside how much Specter should be believed, has King ever before gone after an interview to “prove” that a candidate, any candidate, was not truthful in a debate? How far out of his way did King go to vet Obama?
This is more just Breitbart propaganda and lies.
I heard an interview today on the radio with Arlen Specter and Michael Smerconish, and Specter said the same thing, that he never made a “promise” to Santorum. Except, after Smerconish pressed him Specter said although he made no specific verbal “promise” (freaking duh, nobody would admit such a thing anyway) he said that when Santorum asked him if he, Specter, as the incoming chair of the Judiciary Committee, would help with Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, Specter assured him he would treat them “fairly”. Santorum then went on to do as Bush asked, and endorsed Specter over homo hugger Toomey. I got the distinct impression it was your typical political “wink and nod” agreement. And indeed, Specter helped shepherd through Bush’s nominees, who now sit on the Supreme Court.
This story is a load of horse manure.
Because Spector is a truth-teller sent from God, and Santorum is the living incarnation of Lucifer himself, on whose forehead, if you look closely, the numerals 666 are faintly visible. Or something like that...
LOL. OK, so now we are supposed to believe Arlen Specter? Please. The man tells 7 lies before breakfast each morning.
And we know Specter told the truth because???
Because it’s against Scottish Law to be less than truthful!! That seems to be Spector’s standard!
At the least, Santorum severely stretched the truth by taking credit for endorsing Spector who promised to support Bush’s Supreme Court nominees and for taking credit for the Alito and Roberts ending up on the court. Santorum takes credit for too many accomplishments in the House and Senate. I believe that truth checkers will continue to have a field day with Santorum’s boasting.
Arlen is an arrogant self-centered prick. And he wants to maintain that he didn't make a deal -- to support Roberts and Alito -- in order to gain re-election.
He is trying to maintain the illusion of integrity.
As a matter of fact, the deal that Santorum describes is exactly the deal that everybody understood it to be at the time. It's Arlen's story that's coming out of left field.
If, for your own reasons, you want to take that worthless double-dealing hack's word, be my guest. Just understand that you're peddling a product with no credibility.
It's what weasels do.
Looks to me like old Arlen just took one for the team.
They are all alike!
You can listen to today’s Michael Smerconish interview with Specter at the link below. Scroll down to “SMERCONISH PODCAST HIGHLIGHTS”, and that interview is the first clip. The whole clip is about 10 minutes long, but you can skip right to about the 7:45 mark and listen to Specter explain that he assured Santorum that he had always supported the president’s nominees in the past, including Rehnquist, Scalia, et al, and that he would treat Bush’s nominees the same way he treated those nominees (wink, nod).
“Seriously damaged”?, Seriously? Oh yeah, it’s different on serial-cheating on their wives.
So then Santorum supporter Specter the liar???
It’s worth noting... just for fun, of course....
That Santorum has a long history of endorsing Specter. He also endorsed Specter when he ran for president on the prochoice vanity theme in ‘96.
I wonder how much stretching is required for that one....
There are only two men on earth who know the truth, and one of them is a serial lying Democrat. Sorry for the redundancy. Bob
Do you think that Milt would have endorsed Haley, O’Donnell or Rubio if he had no plans to run for President? I don’t either. Bob
Rick Santorum cannot win a general election. . Why does anyone in their right mind think he can?
Romney is going to be our nominee and will beat Obama and we will hold him accountable. The stakes are too high. Please let’s deal with it.
Why would any Republican believe Spector?
If Arlen’s lips move, he lies. Back 2 logic class with you.
Linda, could you mail me your post please? I’m kind of a cyber-dolt, and I really want to save it. GREAT posting!!! Bob
Santorum, Spector, what’s the difference? Today you believe S. because he’s running for POTUS and you don’t like Romney? Geez! What’s the difference between S. and S.?
Romney is stuck at the same %’s with the base. The two conservatives are splitting votes. Romney probably will be forced upon us since neither conservative can unite bases. I don't see him winning since people despite him.
Specter is lying to help Romney. This is dated 2004 and specter did not dispute it then. Why now?
Specter’s poetic justice
By Dimitri Vassilaros, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, November 12, 2004
Ways to get us
Be a Facebook fan
Follow us on Twitter
On your mobile
Arlen Specter makes fellow U.S. senator John Kerry look consistent.
But do not blame Pennsylvania’s senior senator for being himself. Blame the state’s junior senator and fellow Republican, Rick Santorum, for enabling Specter to be, well, Specter.
Blame President Bush, too.
Specter, the likely next chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, is flip-flopping so often about applying a pro-abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees that the 74-year-old has confused everyone, including himself.
Specter warned Bush last week not to pick judicial candidates who are “too” conservative and/or pro-lifers. If Bush did, Specter and his remaining fellow liberals in the Senate would be displeased.
He flip-flopped the next day, using nuance to distance himself from his own word. Picture a round of the video game “Pong” played at warp speed.
To the untrained eye, it might appear that Specter has betrayed Bush and Santorum. After all, the two actually convinced conservatives in the spring primary that Specter could be counted on. But they did not add that Specter always could be counted on to be himself.
The two spent considerable political capital to drag Specter across the finish line. He barely defeated U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey — a real conservative — by slightly more than 17,000 votes.
But within a day after his near loss, Specter started distancing himself from Bush. Outraged conservatives felt betrayed.
In the July issue of Crisis magazine, Santorum tried to allay their concerns. He wrote that “Sen. Specter ... has said repeatedly that he doesn’t apply a litmus test for judges.”
He did not add that Specter also hinted repeatedly in the general election that he would.
Santorum again had to allay fears. He issued a statement after Specter’s warning.
“I asked Sen. Specter to clarify his comments, which he did in a statement. In that statement, he clarified that he does not support a litmus test for nominees with regard to their stance on abortion. Senate Republicans are committed to approving all of the president’s judicial nominations despite the Democrats’ rhetoric that they are committed to block judges who fail their litmus tests.”
Damn those Democrats.
Curiously, Specter voted to confirm every current member of the Supreme Court, from pro-choice to pro-life ones, except Justice John Paul Stevens, who was on the bench before Specter was a senator.
Even though he voted for eight, Specter told a reporter that the current court lacks legal “giants.” That glaring inconsistency is highlighted when considering one court nominee Specter opposed.
He could have added a giant, Judge Robert Bork. Instead, he undercut the Reagan nominee.
Just when you thought Specter’s thinking simply could not be any more topsy-turvy, he said that his spring primary savior does not have a mandate. However, Bush received over 59 million votes, more than any other president.
And if Bush’s 3.5 million-vote victory margin does not give him a mandate, what does a 17,000-vote margin give Specter?
Barring a bloodless coup d’etat in the Senate to prevent him from ascending to the chairmanship of Judiciary, Republicans are forced to count on Specter to confirm the nomination of the next justice.
For Bush and Santorum, surely this is poetic justice.
More Columnist Dimitri Vassilaros headlines
Hope for anybody
Stopping labor’s shakedown
Shop till you drop
Uncle Santa’s rescue
The Unfairness Doctrine
Consider this on Tuesday
Delta Queen deadline
Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood nitpickers
Subscribe to the Tribune-Review today
Read more: Specter’s poetic justice - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_271975.html#ixzz1nH9KV3ru
I believe that truth checkers will continue to have a field day with Santorums boasting.
The way they had a field day with scum like Harkin and Blumenthal claiming to be Vietnam veterans when they weren't, or Algore inventing the internet? Now, I agree that for a Republican those kinds of lies would be killers, but for the rats those lies are just another day at the office as far as the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms are concerned. But a campaigning politician exaggerating his victories and taking extra credit for stuff? C'mon..
Look, I happen to be a Newt guy, but Santorum would be fine with me. I'll happily vote for either of them. But both of them - - not to mention every other politician - - are in the business of promoting themselves and I'm not about to get agita over it if they stretch the truth. Outright lies are a definite no-no, but a little stretch here and there has got to be expected. You just roll your eyes and take out of it what you can.
Specter isn’t exactly known as a truth-teller. Several sources have reported that Specter made this promise, not only to Santorum, but to the GOP leadership.
The difference was that Specter was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
I still supported Toomey (and then Jim Clymer, the Constitution Party nominee against Specter), but I can understand why someone would want to make sure the Judiciary Committee chair was fighting for the President’s nominees. And he did fight hard for Clarence Thomas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.