Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Steelfish

Newt repented to God. Rick continues to lie or boast, with no repentance. A leader must have clarity. Why would Santorum endorse Spector if Spector is such a bad person?

52 posted on 02/23/2012 10:05:46 PM PST by mitchell001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: mitchell001

Santorum is either boasting or thought what Arlen told him was a “promise”. Either way Santorum is clueless. Arlen Spectacle can promise you the world and it means didley squat.

53 posted on 02/23/2012 10:13:29 PM PST by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: mitchell001

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
E-mail Newsletters
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

63 posted on 02/23/2012 10:29:19 PM PST by Linda Frances (Only God can change a heart, but we can pray for hearts to be changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: mitchell001
Nobody gets post #52, do they? I'll repeat, if S. is a bad guy, why would S, the supposedly good guy endorse S. the bad guy?

Pox on them both1

64 posted on 02/23/2012 10:35:11 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: mitchell001

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.

74 posted on 02/23/2012 10:54:09 PM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson