Remember how during the last debate Rick Santorum defended his endorsement of Arlen Specter by claiming that he first obtained from the Senator a promise to support President Bush’s judicial nominees? It would appear that Senator Specter remembers things a bit differently. From the Washington Post:
“He is not correct. I made no commitment to him about supporting judges,” Specter said. “I made no deal.”
Specter went on to say that Santorum’s endorsement wasn’t that big of a deal.
“His support was hardly determinative, hardly that important,” Specter said, echoing comments he made after his 2004 win. He noted that his campaign ran ads featuring Bush’s endorsement rather than Santorum’s. Bush’s “support was a lot more important,” he said.
So Specter is claiming that Santorum’s noble “taking one for the team” provided a near worthless endorsement that Specter never used, and Rick is now lying about the details in his attempts to justify his actions.
Two thoughts came to mind as I read this:
February 24th, 2012 at 8:01 am
#2 is what I think happened. I think Santorum did not want to involve the WH in his answers, because then it would have led to Bush 43 and perhaps he would then have to reveal private conversations with the President.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:04 am
Rasmussen: Romney leading by 6 points in Michigan
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/michigan/2012_michigan_republican_primary
February 24th, 2012 at 8:06 am
Maybe the truth is in the middle somewhere, but I’m more inclined to believe Santorum, frankly. Spector has shown himself to be untrustworthy.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Or, perhaps Specter is a lying weasel.
I mean, people are basically asking Arlen, “Did you sell out for an endorsement, and did this guy save your @ss?”
What’s he going to say?
I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember a lot of open talk about “assurances” from Specter regarding judicial nominees.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:08 am
Will killjoy tell us the debate had no effect on MI, is this poll an outlier too.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:10 am
Egg on face…wow! This spectre of Specter has come back to haunt!
February 24th, 2012 at 8:14 am
james,
I think you’re on the wrong thread…
February 24th, 2012 at 8:15 am
A pox on both of them.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:15 am
Matt:“Or, perhaps Specter is a lying weasel.”
You won’t get an argument from me on that point.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:16 am
As I’ve said before, I don’t agree with Bush’s and Santorum’s rescue of Specter in ’04, but I understand it. There was much justified fear that control of the Senate hung in the balance. Specter was considered a lock for the general election, and Toomey was considered a decided underdog. The conventional wisdom was that it would either be Specter or a Democrat in the seat, and perhaps, either Specter or a Democrat Senate.
So I get the rationale.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:18 am
I’m replying to the new Rasmussen poll mentioned by Teemu in #2. Sorry for the confusion.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:18 am
For his part, I’m guessing a proud man like Specter has gotten tired of being told for 8 years that he owes his last Senate term to Santorum, and that he effectively surrendered his power as Judiciary Chair to save his seat.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Matt.12,
True. Specter could be downright giddy at the chance to set the record straight after eight years of Santorum puffing up his importance.
(Don’t you just love the spin game?)
February 24th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Yeah I’m not inclined to believe Specter. As MWS says, perhaps he’s a lying weasel.
This was also reported back in 2010, and Specter denied it then as well. At the time, he was running against Sestak for the Democratic nomination for Senate, and Sestak’s campaign jumped on it. Naturally, Specter denied it, trying to gain the support of Democratic primary voters.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:24 am
He said, he said… no way to know the truth.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Link for #14:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35622.html
February 24th, 2012 at 8:25 am
To quote Mitt:
“Arlen Specter.”
February 24th, 2012 at 8:25 am
I think Claire has the right of it in #3. The truth of the matter lies somewhere in-between.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:25 am
#10 “There was much justified fear that control of the Senate hung in the balance.”
If that’s the explanation, then why would Santorum also endorse Specter when he ran for president?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290880/santorum-endorsed-specters-presidential-bid-katrina-trinko
Santorum is a fake, phony, CINO. He’ll be gone soon.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:27 am
MassCon.17 Huh?
To quote Thomas Jefferson, “When, in the course”
February 24th, 2012 at 8:31 am
20
Remember in the debate when Santorum was attacking Romney on RomneyCare, and Romney just looks at him and simply says, “Arlen Specter”
I laughed.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:33 am
marK,
Santorum got a TON of heat in the SoCon and conservative Catholic world for that endorsement. I don’t think he ever bragged about it. He was widely considered a sellout, and some never got over it.
Remember that Arlen was not only the Judiciary chair, but the only stridently pro-abortion Republican in the Senate.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:33 am
Not a shocking surprise to anyone reading this, but Arlen Specter is the one who is lying. He most certainly went begging and whining to those whose help he needed in getting reelected and did cut deals to support Bush’s nominees in exchange for endorsements and support over Toomey.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:34 am
22
Weren’t you OUTRAGED, I mean, OUTRAGED, over the Specter endorsement just a month ago?
February 24th, 2012 at 8:36 am
I don’t need if there was any deal even needed:
When was the last time a pro-choice RINO voted against the Republican president’s originalist nominee, because he suspected that originalist might be a pro-life?
When was the last time a pro-life DINO voted against the Democrat president’s “living constitution” nominee, because living constitution nominee might be pro-choice?
February 24th, 2012 at 8:36 am
BC,
#19
As I’ve said here before, that is the endorsement that bothers me more. But the reason for that endorsement became clearer to me after Team Mitt’s successive OppoResearch dumps.
Rick wasn’t all that passionate about the right to life early in his Congressional career. That much is plain.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:36 am
25:
I don’t know if there was any deal even needed, I meant to say.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:37 am
MassCon,
See #26. The endorsement I was outraged by was Specter for President ’96.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:40 am
marK
Great write-up….thanks.
I woudn’t doubt Specter setting Santroum up or Santorum making up details. Either one works. i guess we’ll never know. Whatever the case, it’s another critically, unwise skeleton from Santorum’s closet.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:43 am
I was at the Republican state committee meeting in January 2004. Karl Rove was the key note speaker. I distinctly remember him telling attendees not only that he was there “because Arlen Specter asked me to be”, but because they needed Specter to get judicial nominees through the process. I don’t know what conversations Santorum and Specter did or did not have, but I can tell you right now that Karl Rove sure as heck acted as though he had an iron-clad guarantee from Specter on judges.
Screw it, I’m doing an FPP.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:45 am
Option 3: Like Newt, Santorum is improvising as he goes.
Option 4: Specter is lying or has memory issues.
We don’t know the truth, but Specter’s denial will make a great Ron Paul ad…
February 24th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Jerald,
I’m not sure how much value Specter has a character witness in the Republican Party right now.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Matt “MWS”
True, and Santorum is not Romney.
Any low-grade liberal meme can be used as evidence that “we can’t trust Romney.”
Santorum has been given a free pass card not afforded to Romney…
February 24th, 2012 at 8:56 am
And Sarah Palin can shoot wolves from helicopters but Romney is assigned to perdition for giving his dog a ride on the roof…
February 24th, 2012 at 8:59 am
This is not a “He said, She said” moment. Step back and see that this is really insider, back room deal making politics at its worst (corruption?). Santorum has been outed.
Watch the embedded video here:
http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/02/24/unravelthesweater-obamacare-santorum-specter-one-vote-difference/
It’s telling to see the panel counter Kelly’s every point, and it is clear they watched the same debate that I did. Not even Fox can spin this for Santorum, not a good night for him at all. Worse yet, he is now off message in the critical days leading up to the next big primaries, and that will definitely accelerate the recent poll trends and affect the outcome.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:01 am
This is how it always works, the nominees always try to avoid answering the pro-life or pro-choice questions in the hearings:
“Pro-choice RINO” : I’m pro-choice (but always vote for Republican president’s originalist judges)
“Pro-life DINO” : I’m pro-life (but always vote for Democrat president’s living constitution judges)
Santorum probably made up deal or any direct promise, but this is how it works, the pro-life Bob Casey voted for Kagan and Sotomayor nomination, for example, the RINOs and DINOs pretty much always go with their party, the more hardcore wing might actually reject too moderate nominees.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:04 am
I think were missing the point, I dont think it matters if Spector is lying or if Romney supported Spector the promblem is that Santorum has presented himself as a pure uncompromising conservative and anything that changes that is a big problem for him.There is a segment of republicans who want a pure conservative and dont even care about electability if he loses these voters he’s in trouble.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Jerald,
“And Sarah Palin can shoot wolves from helicopters but Romney is assigned to perdition for giving his dog a ride on the roof…”
That one really did make me laugh out loud.
Thanks for making my morning a little brighter.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Arlen Specter.
The name sounds like an evil villain from a Bond movie.
This 4 seconds will tell you everything you need to know about Specter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_C-pyovAY
February 24th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Here’s a relevent snippet, from shortly after Specter’s reelection in ’04. It doesn’t speak directly to an understanding between Rum and Specter, but suggests it was likely:
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/19/MNGGP9UAT71.DTL#ixzz1nJOoS2Zd
February 24th, 2012 at 9:13 am
I think most voters are like me – our eyes glaze over at this inside Washington
stuff. It’s politics.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:17 am
The only reason why Santorum is being hit with this endorsement is that he has been campaigning as the “dyed in the wool” “true blue” “only TRUE and pure” conservative in the race.
Specter wasn’t a pure conservative back then (before he stabbed the GOP in the back), and Rick shouldn’t have supported him based on how he’s been campaigning as the principled die-hard.
His last debate completely shattered that image that he’s worked so hard to create. He’s now been completely shown to be a practical “team-player” Washington insider. (not that that makes him a horrible guy or bad Senator, but that’s the oposite of how he’s been campaigning.)
February 24th, 2012 at 9:22 am
#34 Best one of the day so far
February 24th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Nothing Santorum said in that debate is turning out to be accurate.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:58 am
#34 Even though it’s already been said…
LIKE
February 24th, 2012 at 10:25 am
aspire,
You can believe Specter, if you find it convenient, but it looks like Mitt lied Wednesday too, when he claimed he never forced Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacients. Add religious liberty to the issues on which he’s flip flopped, and lied about his history:
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/did-romney-lie-about-cardinal-omalley-to-the-nation-during-the-wednesday-debate/
February 24th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I don’t like Santy, but I think it’s more likely that Specter is lying than Santy is lying. There was probably an implicit deal, but not an explicit deal.
February 24th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Good post MarK, I think this goes under the catagory, fool me once, fool me twice. Many people do not forgive Mr. Bush and Mr. Santorum for their support of Mr. Specture. To be honest, I am not 100% sure what I would do if I were a PA resident in 2004. I never was a fan of Mr. Specture, but he was there when we needed him for Supreme Court judges. In short, I understand why people would support in 2004 and I certainly understand why they would not. However, I would not support Mr. Specture after 2009. All those who call out Mr. Santorum for his support back in 2004 had better bloody well call out all of those who supported in the next cycle.
“Nothing Santorum said in that debate is turning out to be accurate.” That in and of itself is inaccurate.
February 24th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“but it looks like Mitt lied Wednesday too” I have regained some of the respect that I lost for you. I am glad that you no longer gush over Mr. Romney.
February 24th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Specter held up many conservative circuit court judges as chairman from 2004-2006 by not having hearings and focusing on issues like wiretapping as head of the judiciary committee.
He had far less hearings than grassley would have held had he been chairman.
Specter would have made the gop go from 55 to 54 senators and alito and roberts would have made it anyway as the dems chose not to filibuster them like estrada. They weren’t the fifth conservative and dems wanted to play for the 2006 election.
Santorum also had specter on his radio show in 2010 still gushing about specter and santorum supported specter for president in 1996.