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.
Is this what you want?
Last night, Mitt Romney explained his 1992 vote for former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary as a vote against Bill Clinton. Ive 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. Romneys bottom-line? I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot.
Okay, fair enough. Romney is saying hes a Republican, but given the chance to vote against Bill Clinton in 1992, he decided to meddle in the Democratic primary. If hed had the opportunity to vote for a Republican in the Republican primary, hed have jumped at the chance, but lacking that, he voted Democratic.
Seems reasonable, except there was a Republican primary. But its not just the facts that get in the way of Mitt Romneys explanation. Its Mitt Romney himself, because just about each time hes explained the vote, hes explained it differently.
On December 15, 1993, The Boston Globe reported that Romney said he couldnt 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 ABCs 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 didnt 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.
You’re saying Arlen’s never lied on TV before????
Specter is lying to help Romney. This is dated 2004 and specter did not dispute it then. Why now?
Specters 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 Pennsylvanias senior senator for being himself. Blame the states 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 doesnt 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 Specters 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 presidents 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 Specters 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 Bushs 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 detat 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 labors shakedown
Shop till you drop
Uncle Santas rescue
The Unfairness Doctrine
Consider this on Tuesday
Delta Queen deadline
Mr. Rogers neighborhood nitpickers
Subscribe to the Tribune-Review today
Read more: Specters poetic justice - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_271975.html#ixzz1nH9KV3r
Pox on them both1
Specter said during his 1998 reelection bid that it would be his last one, and that if he won, he planned to retire after the completion of the term. I was not surprised in the least when he hit the campaign trail again in 2004.
Really? Believe specter?
Maybe Rick knew that Toomey supported and wanted to vote for gays in the military and Rick thought that would be horrible so he endorsed Specter. Toomey went on and voted YES to gays in the military, but he is the conservative one? I am missing something besides the hatred towards Santorum from some of you guys.
After Hatch, had Specter not won, Kyl or Cornyn were next in line. Cornyn wasn’t interested because he had the leadership of another committee... from what I’ve read in the archives at FR, Kyl is an okay guy.
There was also a grassroots campaign to stall Specter, which was talked about here on FR in 2004:
From Human Events:
Specter Stands Alone:
No GOP Senator on Judiciary Committee Willing to Declare Support for Specter — Santorum Also Declines to Lend Support. 11/09/2004
Sanctimonium is no different than other politician, but his holier-than-thou attitude causes him to offer himself as such. And a lot of people are believing in him, the same way they believed Barack, a wet-behind-the-ears senator, with a lot of emotion-laden rhetoric, who presented himself as America’s hope. It’s the republicans’ turn to be taken in, this time, by a republican Messiah. It is really a shame, they haven’t learned anything from watching how Barack did it.
Romney is an ass.
Ever since Breitbart had that to-do regarding the homosexuals at CPAC, he has been unreliable as a conservative. When he held his party for the “gays” and made such a big deal out of “welcoming them,” I dropped Andrew like a hot rock.
After Hatch, had Specter not won, Kyl or Cornyn were next in line. Cornyn wasnt interested because he had the leadership of another committee... from what Ive read in the archives at FR, Kyl is an okay guy.
There was also a grassroots campaign to stall Specter, which was talked about here on FR in 2004:
From Human Events:
Specter Stands Alone:
No GOP Senator on Judiciary Committee Willing to Declare Support for Specter Santorum Also Declines to Lend Support. 11/09/2004
Sanctimonium is no different than other politician, but his holier-than-thou attitude causes him to offer himself as such. And a lot of people are believing in him, the same way they believed Barack, a wet-behind-the-ears senator, with a lot of emotion-laden rhetoric, who presented himself as Americas hope. Its the republicans turn to be taken in, this time, by a republican Messiah. It is really a shame, they havent learned anything from watching how Barack did it.
WTH??? This sounds like a replay of the controversy from April 2010 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv76qogrkvk&feature=endscreen&NR=1
More from 2010 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IUGtS29DaM&NR=1&feature=endscreen
I agree. What does it say about Santorum that he believed Arlen Specter? That misguided belief gave birth to his misguided support - and the 60th vote on Obamacare.
Did you read my post?
Anyway, Toomey did not vote to sodomize the military since he had not yet been seated when that vote took place. He did, however, say that he supported the sodomization of the military and so he presumably would have voted to sodomize the military given the chance.
Who were the sources? do you have a link? thanks.
I was not directly saying that you were for sure.
IMO, Santorum stretched nothing. RIGHT AFTER Arlen won, and I mean it was a matter of a few hours, Arlen made a live on air comment that he was pretty much going to do what he felt like vis a vis W. After all that campaigning Bush and Santorum did to save his butt! There were people so furious with him that he almost didn’t get the Judicial Committee Chairmanship. Most likely, after he had crawled back over a sufficient amount of hot macadam, he got the Charmanship, and behaved himself very well regarding the SCOTUS nominations.
THIS is Arlen Specter.
Spector is scum, but I don’t think Santorum can survive this.... he has become damaged goods.
This will not just blow over, it is going to get very nasty over the next few days.
Specter won’t admit he made a deal. Here’s another article specter did not refute
Specter: I Won’t Block Pro-Life Judges
Thursday, Nov. 18, 2004
After two days of appealing to fellow GOP senators, embattled Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said he would make a public statement to assure Republicans at large he would not block anti-abortion judicial nominees from President Bush.
Im working on it, Specter said of the statement after receiving more Senate support despite calls from anti-abortion conservatives that he be skipped over as the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Story Continues Below
Specter, a moderate on abortion rights, has been trying to repair the damage caused by his postelection comment that Democrats would probably block judicial nominees who would try to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case legalizing abortion.
And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning, he said then.
Since then, he has been trying to reassure Republicans that he would not stand in the way of Bushs nominees if he takes over the Judiciary Committee next year when current chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah steps down because of term limits.
Hes been on radio and television and telling senators one by one and in groups that he doesnt have a litmus test on abortion for judges. In addition, hes been stressing that Democrats plan to filibuster against conservative judges regardless of what he does.
People are looking to him to provide some assurance, so hell make a statement, said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who is in line, in terms of seniority, to become the committees chairman if Specter is passed over.
Senators have said that there would have to be some kind of public reckoning for Specter to smooth over relations with abortion opponents, and to give them some political cover from the e-mails, faxes and phone calls they have been receiving.
But nothing Specter says will satisfy some conservatives, who say he has a track record of opposing their issues.
When Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions or John Cornyn would make a great chairman, why in the world would Republicans take the great risk of trusting Specter? said Jan LaRue, lawyer for the conservative Concerned Women for America.
Nevertheless, the Senates No. 3 Republican, staunch anti-abortion advocate and fellow Pennsylvanian Rick Santorum, offered Specter support.
I think everyone knows that I have been a supporter of Sen. Specter throughout this process, in his re-election, Santorum said. I expect him to keep his commitments, to move judges out of committee, and to be an advocate of the president in getting those judges passed.
Specter spent most of Tuesday talking to noncommittal Senate leadership and to GOP Judiciary Committee members, who will take an official vote on his chairmanship in January.
That vote, whichever way it goes, can be appealed to the full GOP caucus, which heard from Specter on Wednesday.
No one would say what Specter told senators, and that includes Specter. Under no circumstance would I begin to tell you what I said, he said afterward.
But no one spoke out for or against Specter during the meeting. At the same time, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Specters comments were received well.
Even before the meeting, Specter was getting public statements of support from colleagues like Hatch, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.
He was just restating the facts about potential challenges with a Supreme Court nominee before the United States Senate, Snowe said.
His subsequent statements since Election Day, said Warner, have been clear as a bell no ifs, ands or buts. I think hes made clear the circumstances under which he made that statement, and he should be given the opportunity to serve.
© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Condi Rice for president? Find out the details Click Here Now
Get your copy of “Stolen Honor” and find out why John Kerry is afraid you and millions of Americans will see it Click Here Now.
Dan Rather Shocked by Bush Map Reds Are Growing Click Here Now
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.