Posted on 11/12/2004 10:46:31 AM PST by spycatcher
SANTORUM & SPECTER [KJL]
I obviously wish Toomey was in the Senate rather than Specter, but here we are. The thing to do, is PRESSURE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE to come down hard on Specter (easy contacts here). Mid to late yesterday, in chatting with an in-the-know senior Republican staffer, I was still hearing “could go either way” (from that source and others). Senators and staff are still working the issue, hard. (That said, I've said where I would probably put my money.) If Specter becomes chairman, there are enough people in the right places on the Hill who want it to be with some real conditions. I was also told: Specter will obviously be an enemy if he is denied chairmanship, but if it is clear that he will be an enemy to conservatives as chairman before becoming chairman (which I certainly think he's already strongly hinted, but let him keep talking....), there are people on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are willing to say "screw him" and deny chairmanship. That might be wishful thinking, or rhetoric to pressure him. But the point is that some people in the right places are hearing you and taking action. Message to you: Keep up the pressure on the Republicans members of the Judiciary Committee. (Did I mention that?) And the message from me, and from Senate sources: Santorum’s not the right guy to be leading the fight against Specter, so e-mailing him or decrying him in the press isn’t what’s going to get results (the ones you want, anyway)--one or more of the GOPers on the Judiciary Committee need to be leading the anti-Specter-as-Judiciary-Committee-chairman fight. I've seen some groups focus on Santorum and not the Judiciary Committee, and I really think they're wasting their resources.
There’s a piece on conservatives firing at Rick Santorum in the [Pittsburgh] Post-Gazette today in the effort to keep Specter from becoming judiciary chair. Basically, some conservatives blame Santorum for the fact that Specter is in the Senate.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. I think that’s not a helpful tactic. It’s misdirected anger and misspent energy. Yeah, NR was for Toomey in the primary. I was for Toomey. I cringe every bloody time I see file photos of Bush or Santorum on the trail for Specter. I think it was a miscalculation for the White House to have decided early on that Toomey couldn’t win, and the president, especially, could have avoided campaigning with Specter. But, folks, that’s over and done with. Moveon, as they say. Fact is, Santorum’s a good guy, who’s made the case for conservatives on some key issues in the Senate. He’s a guy I certainly want there, flaws and all, because on balance, he’s a plus and a good guy, of the genuine sort (with a dear, dear family).
And, right now the winnable and practical goal is keeping Specter from the judiciary chairmanship because he does not have the temperament to be chairman of that key committee at this key moment in history.
And I’d humbly encourage conservatives to be wary of going on the attack on Santorum. He’s a leader in the Senate, and a conservative one. As people are complaining that we’re undercutting the GOP majority in the Senate by the Specter fight (I think it helps, overall, but you know where I am), I fear conservatives are really a bit too eat-their-own about Santorum. I’d like to see him reelected in 2006. Don’t get me wrong, criticize when criticism is due, but I don’t see the primary-grudge stuff being helpful now, or later.
Posted at 12:12 PM
Why is it the voters are accused of "eat their own"? Couldn't it be said that Santorum "ate his own" with his endorsement of Specter and rejection of Toomey?
Talk about the odd couple!
I couldn't agree more. I voted for Specter ONLY to help the Republicans work toward a filibuster-free majority in the Senate. But I've also written to every Republican on the Judiciary Committee to tell them that a lot of Pennsylvanians did that and are now depending on them to put this dangerous beast out to pasture.
I wouldn't attack Santorum either. Karl Rove must have twisted his arm very hard to force him to endorse Specter. I imagine he was made an offer he couldn't refuse. Santorum has been a wonderful senator with this one exception.
On the other hand, I don't think the "what's done is done" argument is necessarily smart. When political operators screw up, they need to be held to account for it and taught not to do it again.
Somebody really needs to rub Rove's nose into this mess. It's not the first time he's forced a RINO on the party. If not for Rove, Bill Simon might have been governor of California. He only lost by a few percent against Gray Davis, and he managed to do that against the total opposition of the press and the failure of Gerald Parsky, who was installed by Rove, to raise any money for him.
Then you can go back to Brett Schundler in 2000. I don't know if he could have won, but Rove pulled the rug out from under him and let that scum McGreevey take the state instead. Schundler was a marvelous candidate: a conservative with an inner city constituency. We won't get that chance again. And in spite of it all, Bush still lost New Jersey. Not to speak of California and Pennsylvania.
OK so how long will you blame Santorum? Long enough to ensure a democrat replaces him in two years? what will that do for the conservative movement?
Santorum miscalculated. I like the guy, let's not castrate the poor guy.
Uh - I don't live and vote in Pennsylvania. And if I did I wouldn't vote for the Democrat over him. But the fact remains he sold out his constituents. He wanted to keep Specter in the good ol' boys club.
And in retrospect, it appears like to me that Toomey would've won. Take a look at the vote totals:
Kerry 2,883,833---Hoeffel 2,295,305
Bush 2,756,361-----Specter 2,890,818
Badnarik 20,830----Clymer 216,930
Note that Hoeffel has 600K less votes than Kerry, while Specter has only 130K more votes than Bush. Clymer was the recipient of 217K Specter protest-votes.
It's evident to me that a large group of Democrats were not going to vote Kerry-Hoeffel, and I doubt the presence of Toomey on the ticket changes that dynamic. My guess is that Hoeffel gets a couple hundred thousand more votes, and Toomey gets all the Clymer votes. Still not enough for Hoeffel to win, though.
Good job of laying out the Rovian mistakes. Funny how the Bush team seems to err on the side of "moderates" (actually RINOs) so often.
How did PA elect Santorum, but Bush couldn't win there either time?
That question has baffled me for years.
1. I would prefer not to have Arlen as Chairman, but it would be nice to keep him on board by offering him something that will help soothe his massive ego. I'd rather he didn't bolt, but I wouldn't give up important policies to keep him either. He is at best unreliable. I will tire very quickly of seeing headlines, "GOP Chairman says nominee extreme, agrees with ABA witness".
2. If Specter does keep the post, it should be under some very strict conditions:
a. Make it conditioned on his support of a change in the Senate rules eliminating filibusters of judicial nominees. Frist couldn't push this last Congress because Specter and Chafee would not go along.
b. Include in the new Senate rules that the committee chairman can be removed by a majority vote of the GOP members of the committee at any time. This would require only 6 of 11 GOP senators to threaten to keep him in line.
c. Have him commit, in writing to Sen. Frist, that he will bring nominees to hearing, and move them to the floor, within a specific time frame. If he does not, he understands that he is stonewalling the President's nominees, and that will be cause to invoke the rules and remove him as chair.
d. Have him commit, in writing to Sen. Frist, that he will not try to torpedo the President's nominees with selective leaks and smear campaigns conducted in the liberal press. He can oppose the candidates on the floor of the senate, but his opposition should be above-board, for reasons that can be stated to his colleagues.
e. Make sure that the committee has a 3 vote majority at least, so Specter cannot vote no and cause a tie.
As we have said ad nauseum, this is the most important aspect of President Bush's win, and we cannot give it away at the outset.
Exactly! Thank you. It is ridiculous to go after a great conservative like Santorum. He erred in supporting Specter, but his intentions were good. Give him a break.
Yep, it's confusing. Until you find out that Dems outnumber Republicans by half a million voters in our state and that Specter campaigned for Santorum and helped him get more of the center. I'd like to see him make sure Santorum wins when he runs again.
===
"During the course of the general election campaign, the moderate wing of the party moved to embrace Santorum. Even two of Specter's top campaign operatives eventually joined Santorum’s campaign, and Specter’s help was a central component in the Santorum campaign."
Not only that PA re-elected Santorum, they did it in an presidential election year, 2000! And no one thought that Santorum was some moderate in 2000. If you put up a "moderate" the D's stay D's unless there is incumbency. Everyone loves pork.
But Rick has that Reagan Democrat appeal, IOW conservative D's love him for his stance on guns and abortion, among others. Toomey had the exact same profile as Santorum both Catholic pro-lifers. When left without that kind of choice the Reagan Dems, who should proabably be renamed the Catholic Dems at least for Great Lakes states, they revert to voting for Democrats. Now Arlen pulls the other Democrats into his column; the labor union guys and planned parenthood people.
It's really funny that Specter's voters and Santorum's voters (at least the registered D's that vote for those two) are totally different voters.
You probably couldn't find too many registered Democrats who have voted for the both of them.
I agree.
His intentions were good???!!! What are you talking about??? Santorum has been fighting the pro-life fight hard and stronger than any Senator out there, now he's backing a pro-abortion Senator. That is called selling out. Plain and simple. He gave up his principles so that he could support his party. Those are NOT good intentions.
And Specter would not help us break fillibusters because he doesn't vote with us half of the time anyway.
I did not say I agree with him on Specter. But Santorum does vote conservatively himself. At this point we cannot go back and redo the primary. We are stuck with Specter for 6 more years. We might as well go on from here and make the best of it. Our cause is not helped by targeting Santorum.
Good discussion guys.
Now pick up the phones and start clicking the keyboards. There's a two-pronged attack to pursue;
1. Pressure the GOP to put someone other that Specter at the chair of the Judiciary Committee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278200/posts
2. Pressure the GOP to use the nuclear option to prevent more filibusters of the President's nominations
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278093/posts
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.