According to Arlen Specter’s 2004 campaign manager, Rick Santorum gave Specter more than an endorsement that year — he happily shared his political organization.
“The Santorum political machine in Pennsylvania, from top to bottom, was incredibly helpful to Senator Specter in that campaign at every level, from things large to things small,” says Christopher Nicholas, a veteran GOP consultant and longtime Specter adviser. “I’ve never been in a campaign where another elected official was so helpful.”
“Little things, they helped us with events; big things, they did a TV ad for us,” says Nicholas, who steered Specter’s 2004 and 2010 campaigns. “[Santorum] was there. Those two had each other’s backs. Jewish, Catholic; eastern, western; moderate, conservative. Specter helped Santorum with wings of the party that he needed help with and vice versa.”
Nicholas adds that the Specter-Santorum political alliance goes far beyond 2004. “What people often forget is that the first round of the story was in 1994 when Specter loaned [then-aide Patrick Meehan], who had run his 1992 reelect, to Santorum — to run Santorum’s general-election campaign after the 1994 primary,” he says. “Specter helped at the beginning.”
That early gesture — from an incumbent to a newcomer — was greatly appreciated by Santorum, Nicholas says, and cemented a strong working relationship that continued on Capitol Hill. “There is a long history and political observers and national conservative groups frequently forget that their history started before 2003,” he says. “They always made a good team. You’ve got to remember, this is a partnership that began before Santorum was elected to the Senate.”
It was a political protection racket, which is politics, yes, but it is kind of amusing to see Mr. Santorum, super keen divinity student, making such a friendly pact with someone who surely is, under his own expressed belief system, under the influence of Satan. I would have thought Rick would have wanted to get Specter behind him, so to speak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow wonderful for Rick and Arlen.
This just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy towards DC pols.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCOURAGE
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis story keeps getting better. Earlier today Specter said on Smerconish's radio show that there was no side deal regarding supporting nominated judges as was suggested in last night's debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd Santorum was still licking Specter all over ~after~ Specter's last party-switching sellout of conservatives! When Santorum started his Friday gig that he was doing on the Bill Bennett show, he had Arlen as his first guest. And he made quite a big deal about it...about what deep friendship and respect (I don't remember the exact words) that he had for Specter. It was an unbelievable in-your-face shoutout to the conservative base, which Santorum knew would be offended by his continuing embrace of Specter. This would have been some time in 2010, I think!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo it's a revelation that, after saying he wanted Specter to win, Santorum tried to help him win? Why is this worthy of a post, other than to have another excuse to try to drive those who dislike Specter away from Santorum?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, I find it refreshing and just a bit reassuring that while these two men were not exactly from the same side of the aisle in terms of political philosophy, they were still friends and worked together for the good of their constituants and untimately the country in the areas that they agreed on.
Santorum made a very important, if complicated point in the debate last night that as Chaiman or senior minority member of the Senate Judicial Commitee, Specter was a crucial part of the Supreme Court approval process during the Clinton and Bush years; without Specter's active assistance, people like Alito and Roberts might well have suffered the same treatment as Judge Bork, and we would all be worse off for it. I liked Toomey more than Specter, but his election was not a sure thing at the time, and he would not have had the power and influence to make a difference in that key area even if he were elected in place of Specter that year. Santorum made what history will probably judge to be the right choice over all.
As wobbly as he was on a great many issues dear to the hearts of conservatives, Arlen Specter the Republican was far preferable to Arlen Specter the Democrat, especially when he used his powers for Good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wasn't paying that much attention at the time but my general impression has been that Santorum lost his reelection bid mostly because of his support for Specter. That being said, it seems that both sides of the isle need to work on their civility. Democracy is very much an exercise in civility and the more we move away from it the more Democracy itself is threatened. Santorum's support of Specter was more than civility though; it was a politician doing what seemed most prudent to win the battles most worth fighting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStanding on principal is important particularly in conveying your beliefs to the electorate. Getting things done politically, however, will always mean a certain amount of give and take. This means doing things you may not agree with to achieve other, hopefully more important, things. It seems to me that what is most important for a politician is to have clearly articulated core beliefs that a voter can expect will drive the overall agenda. I would say that Santorum and Gingrich fit this model.
Romney and Paul are less so. Romney seems very much to be holding his finger in the air and going the way the political wind blows. Paul stands strongly on principal to the point of being politically ineffective.
You'd think that at least Santorum and Gingrich would have played their politicial games a llittle smarter. I can hardly have respect for them, when they lay down with the lib dogs and then try to explain to the American voter that they have shaken off all the feas. They found comfort in those beds for years and you know what they say about old dogs learning new tricks. For the last 20 years they have both been selling their beliefs for the highest dollar.
Why they are still geting votes is a mystery to me. I gues if you just say "it was stupid or I was taking a hit for my party" excuses bad behavior now days.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI liked Toomey better than Specter but one of Toomey's first votes was tp repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell for Obama. Toomey is just another RINO. Rick Santorum is the best bet out of the 4 GOP candidates and he can win in November.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseC'mon. There was probably no Republican in the Senate whose ideas Specter opposed more than Santorum's. And Specter's staff hated the Santorum guys. (And no one--Rep or Dem--ever liked Specter.)
Nicholas is obviously trying to damage Santorum with this statement, and by not pointing out the obvious, it would seem Costa is trying to do the same.
Who on God's earth believes Nicholas isn't trying to screw Santorum with this statement?
(The only thing good about all this is imagining Specter having to watch everyone trying to smear others by invoking his horrid name.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe damage was done by the mere endorsement alone and the damage has been shown to be even worse by the extra work done. Rick Santorum gave an explicit endorsement to Arlen Specter. That alone was a huge deal. Endorsing a candidate can be as good as writing a check for a million bucks to them. George W Bush also endorsed Arlen Specter and it probably amounted to more than a million dollars in influence. To add to that the fact that Santorum did all these other things to help Specter just makes things worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy don't you just come out and say in this post that you are for Romney? It is quite obvious to anybody with a fifth grade education.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn a more simplistic level, might it be that Santorum was simply and appropriately doing for Specter what Specter had done for him. For some of us that act hints very closely to what we keep being reminded are Santorum's first principles: In this case, The Golden Rule. It is also being charitable which is a virtue on a long list of virtues that are generally neglected or ignored by those running for elected office.
In the rush to brand such behavior as weird or wearing your religion on your sleeve, I think instead that Santorum's act here is refreshing and a model of how I wish more people would act. With charity nurtured by Christian formation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse