Specter, for his part, disagrees:
Specter also scoffed at the notion that Santorum’s backing helped him turn aside the primary challenge from then-Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). (Toomey again ran for and this time won Specter’s seat in 2010, when Specter switched parties but lost the Democratic nomination.)
“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.
UPDATE: Specter also denies making a pact:
“He is not correct. I made no commitment to him about supporting judges,” Specter said. “I made no deal.”
Wow, Mr. Costa, don't you think it's rather strikingly disingenuous of you not to quote the part of the story where Specter indicates that Santorum is lying in his claim that he made a deal with Specter to support conservative judges, and that is why he endorsed Specter?
"Former Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter said Thursday that Rick Santorum got his facts wrong when he said that he endorsed Specter only after securing a promise that Specter would support GOP Supreme Court nominees."
"Specter said on The Michael Smerconish Program on Thursday morning that that wasn't the case.
"He is not correct. I made no commitment to him about supporting judges," Specter said. "I made no deal."
External Link
The level at which many GOP pundits (I won't call them journalists) are acting simply as propaganda conduits for "their man" is really notable this year. You might as well be MSM "journalists" writing about Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKind of like how The Weekly Standard sees no irony in calling out the Romney Campaign's post debate e-mails as Pravda-esque when the TWS routinely filters information that's critical of the non-Romney flavor of the week but demonstrates no such reticence when it comes to Romney. I will give credit to NRO, however, for not being monolithic. Maybe Rich isn't as dictatorial about forcing his editiorial views on the staff as Kristol seemingly is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArlen Specter, playing the role of scorpion to Rick Santorum's frog. I love it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting. To be frank I'm surprised by this news.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes anyone actually trust Arlen Specter?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat was my first thought. One of the main reasons the he-supported-Specter charge is so damning is that Specter is an opportunistic hack and nobody should believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShorter Arlen Specter: "not proven."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePersonally, I couldn't care less if Specter claims Santorum is lying. I'd believe Bill Clinton over Arlen Specter. Better chance he's telling the truth.
The lesson here for conservatives (or even quasicons like Santorum) is to stop selling out conservatives in favor of left-wing whackos in the name of party unity. You'll never get the favor returned. You'll never be rewarded with the seat at the big table for selling out your supposed principles.
Party unity to a RINO is like compromise to a Dem: solely a one-way street.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I have to choose between who is lying, Specter or Santorum...I would pick Specter every time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If I have to choose between who is lying, Specter or Santorum...I would pick Specter every time."
Great. So Santorum didn't merely support the liberal Specter. He supported the lying, liberal Specter. Hmmm. Much better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe television ads featured both Bush AND Santorum with Specter. It was titled "Three for Pennsylvania"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse