ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports:
And as for the pro-abortion-rights presidential candidate Santorum endorsed, when Specter launched a long-shot bid for president in 1995, Santorum — his fellow Pennsylvanian — was one of his few high-profile endorsements.
For Specter, who later became a Democrat, his pro-abortion-rights position was a centerpiece of his campaign. Specter believed that anti-abortion activists were a “fringe” group hijacking the Republican party.
“There are clearly more Republicans who are pro-choice,” Specter told Newsday’s Susan Page. “Up until now, I am the only person willing to take on the fringe.” After Specter dropped out of the race, he led an ill-fated movement to change the anti-abortion provision in the Republican party platform.
Santorum was effectively returning a favor by endorsing Specter despite his aggressive pro-abortion-rights views. Specter had supported Santorum’s 1994 Senate campaign.
Full piece, which includes the details on how Santorum was one of the Republican senators who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (an appointment that figures like Rush Limbaugh warned would lead to her becoming a Supreme Court nominee), here.
So far, the Romney campaign has been hitting Santorum on earmarks and his votes to hike the debt ceiling. But with Santorum surging nationally in the polls, it’s likely both his Sotomayor vote and his backing of Specter will be used by the Romney campaign and/or the Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. Negative ads played a large role in taking down Newt Gingrich in both Iowa and Florida; with Santorum’s favorables very high now, it would be shocking if Restore Our Future didn’t attempt to bombard the airwaves in Michigan and some or all of the Super Tuesday states with ads attacking Santorum.
So is NRO going to claim that Santorum is pro-abortion, or wobbly on the issue? Or just trying t imply it without coming out and actually saying it?
How about providing some analysis rather than just providing a forum for Romney press releases?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesantorum dances with who took him to the dance; no spine, works as a LOBBYIST! How 'insider' can you get? Says we should follow Israel's lead on the IraN moves - same as Hillary. No policy on China, tariffs on China, mute on loss of American influence inAfrica, Americas. A real Eddie Haskell!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, he backed Specter. The question is, how is this information used against him.
It looks like the article would imply that maybe Rick is not as solidly pro-life as he claims.
The irony is that would likely HELP Rick with the independents. "Hey, he can't be too much of a monster if he was willing to support Specter" (So thanks ABC News)
Meanwhile, anyone in the GOP knows Rick is as passionate about pro-life as possible. The reason for supporting Specter had nothing to do with agreeing with Specter's take on abortion.
Romney needs to be careful how he uses the Specter support. Especially since it all comes back to electability - that Specter was a sure GOP win. Isn't that Romney's selling point - vote for him since he can win?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis information will alienate conservatives and have no effect on independents who wouldn't vote for Santorum if their hair was on fire and he had the only fire extinguisher in the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum is only now beginning to be vetted. There is quite a bit of ammunition available to Romney to use, although it won't reach the levels of Newt. It will be interesting to see how Santorum fares these next couple of weeks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum has clearly explained why the Spector win was a plus for conservatives, as it assured the appointment of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. I suspect he has good conservative answers for these other criticisms. He's the true conservative in this race, not that fellow who claims to have traveled the road to Damascus quite recently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the candidate who is begging us to forget (or forgive him) for BEING A pro-abortion candidate in the 1990s, and pretty much up through his election as Governor in 2003, is actually going to attack a more conservative, solid pro-lifer for an ENDORSEMENT in the 1990s?
Romney is in trouble if this is his approach. With Newt, he could attack actual problems. With Santorum, everything he's throwing so far applies equally to himself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is not " attacking " Santorum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a report by ABC News using widely available facts .
I don't believe Santorum was even in the Senate when Sotomeyer was confirmed was he?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum's continuing affection for Specter is one of the most troubling things to me in considering him as a presidential nominee.
Even after Specter's (last) party-switching betrayal of Republicans, Santorum -- beginning his gig as Friday host for Bill Bennett -- had Specter as his first guest. Santorum was practically drooling on the contemptible Specter and telling the audience what about how they were BFFs (or something close to that).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're conflating two events. Santorum endorsed Specter when he ran for the GOP presidential nomination in the 1996 cycle, and endorsed him again in 2004 when Pat Toomey challenged in the GOP primary for the Senate. How'd that "sure thing" turn out for the GOP when Specter switched parties and voted for Obamacare?
Santorum's support for Specter, as well as his vote to confirm Sotomayor have nothing to do with abortion. It boils down to bad judgment.
And past support for Specter isn't going to help Santorum with independents, many of whom find his strident social conservatism to be bat guano crazy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy comment was intended as a reply to Steve Wright.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo...bad judgement.
It would have been 'better judgement' to start a war with the senior senator from your own state, AND your own President (who wanted Specter). Would have been better to risk losing the Senate seat and having to use a ton of resources that were better spent elsewhere by the RNC.
And of course, Rick leveraged his endorsement to keep Specter on the judicial reservation and we now have Justices Alito and Roberts.
As to the judge - you might recall another war the GOP had with the Democrats on the proper role of the Senate when it comes to judicial appointments.
But as I said elsewhere - you do show why so few Senators win a Presidential nomination. Too many votes to analyze and spin. Which sure makes it puzzling why Romney is having such a hard time putting him away.
See you in Michigan.
(captcha win hands down)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If the abortion issue was important to a voter, he would be wise to probably look to another candidate."
External Link
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
"...what does that say to a man's core conservative values?"
External Link
EXACTLY!
"I don't want our conservative president compromising with leftist legislation."
External Link
Or endorsing leftist, pro-abortion politicians, Judges, and fiscal policies.
"Yeah..that lucky Rick (Santorum). So lucky to spend you whole life actually passionate about the issue of life "
External Link
Maybe not his "whole life" and maybe not as "passionate" as you'd like to portray him.
I personally want to thank you for writing my response to your post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that political sausage-making can be unpleasant. But Santorum didn't have to "start a war" with Specter. He could have simply stayed neutral in the 2004 GOP primary. For a conservative to oppose Specter doesn't take a lot of courage.
And the idea that Specter was key to getting Roberts and Alito confirmed? That's nonsense on stilts. Roberts was confirmed 78-22. Alito was confirmed 58-42 (cloture vote was 72-25).
But the Senate vote on Obamacare was 60-39, with Specter providing one of the required 60 votes.
See you in MI.
captcha: yeah right
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess you don't know how the Senate works - as to the Chairman and the power he (i.e. Specter) holds over whether there even is a vote and someone makes it out of commitee
To look at the final vote, and then subtract one and say 'we didn't need Specter's vote' is woefully inaccurate.
Ever heard of Ted Kennedy or Pat Leahy? Remember them wielding raw power as Chairman of Judiciary?
My point stands. Santorum supported Specter and Specter agreed to support Bush's nominees out of commitee and on the floor vote.
And thus, we have Alito and Roberts
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOut of one side of your keyboard you attack Romney for Romneycare, never once acknowledging the fact that he was facing a Democratic supermajority that would pass legislation in spite of his veto, and blame him for "choosing" to run for office in a liberal State, and out of the other you defend Santorum for his liberal choices made solely out of political expediency and partisan cronyism.
To use your own words, "what does that say to a man's core conservative values?"
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, the "insult your opponent" school of argument when you're losing on the facts.
I do know how the Senate works, and if Specter had lost in the 2004 primary to Toomey, the chairman of the judiciary committee would likely have been Grassley or Kyl. I'm no fan of Grassley's but he would have been superior to Specter. Kyl would have been gift.
But super true conservative Santorum got behind the meanest, least principled guy in the Senate. Says a lot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm no Santorum apologist, but this meaningless. So what if Santorum endorsed the other Senator from the same state who's in the same party as he is?! I don't care how liberal Spector is, it's what you do. You don't abandon your colleague like that. Santorum's loyalty to his colleague over the objections of those who are demanding a ideological purity test impresses me.
(Haha... Silly comment system. I originally wrote my last sentence with "who are" as a contraction and my comment was rejected because it thought I was writing a word that means the same thing as a lady of the night. I guess it doesn't read apostrophes)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I don't care how liberal Specter is, it's what you do."
"Santorum's loyalty to his colleague...over ideological purity test impresses."
i.e.,--Over "core principles" & the millions of lives aborted as a result of the pro-abortion agendas of Specter-like presidents & senators?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse