In an interview today, Rick Santorum fought back against Arlen Specter’s assertion that Specter had never told Santorum he would vote for Republican judges.
“Well we just found a press article from that year in which I think it’s the Pittsburgh Post Gazette actually wrote that he [Specter] admitted that he pledged to his colleagues and not specifically to me but to his colleagues that he would give the President’s nominees a fair hearing and that he would move their nominations out,” Santorum said on Fox News Channel’s America Live with Megyn Kelly.
“He can say whatever he wants, he can try to rewrite history, but the fact of the matter is he was publicly saying yes, I am going to do this because his colleagues wanted that assurance,” Santorum added. “So it’s in the press that he did say that number one, and number two, he did it. He stood by Justice Alito and Justice Roberts, and stood by them, helped shepard them through the process. Two very conservative nominees, I’m sure now he feels bad about that but you can’t rewrite history.”
Talking about his vote for No Child Left Behind, Santorum took a shot at Romney. “For Mitt Romney to attack me for not being conservative is laughable,” he said. “When I was out there fighting No Child Left Behind, he was out there supporting and going to Planned Parenthood fundraisers.”
shepard?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt doesn't matter anyway. The excuse doesn't make any sense because it implies that Toomey would not support the president's judicial nominees - very doubtful. So there must have been some other reason Santorum supported Specter
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>The excuse doesn't make any sense because it implies that Toomey would not support the president's judicial nominees - very doubtful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse***
Exactly! By this compelling reasoning, Santorum is more than spinning...he is lying. And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Santorum had Specter as his first guest when he started his gig as Friday substitute for Bill Bennett in 2010. And he made clear that Specter was his first guest because of his deep and profound affection for his former Senate colleague. For whatever reason, Santorum wanted to flaunt his close relationship with Specter and show us all that it was a love that was stronger than party affiliation. (Specter had already made his critical, double-cross switch over to the Democrat Party.) It is clear to me that Santorum neither had nor needed a legitimate judicial rationale for supporting Specter in 2004; Santorum and Specter were great friends over a long period and until recently....maybe until this week.
Are you two unaware that Specter was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee?? And that Toomey is not Chairman of the Judiciary Committee now and would not have been then?
And you hold it against Santorum that he invited a liberal to be a guest on his show? Hannity does that all the time. So what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's aware of that. It's just that the truth is not as important as making sure that Santorum doesn't beat the choosen one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney supporter here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpecter was chairman of the Judiciary (sp?) Committee. Toomey would not have been. What I don't remember is who was next in line if Specter lost.
Sorry for the interruption, but you have a problem on the main page. Your Chris Christie video is showing the Obama video by mistake. Please correct. I wanna see Chris!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUh, when did Rick Santorum ever "fight" No Child Left Behind?
Mr. "team player" didn't have the "courage" to oppose it, remember?
Sounds like Ricky Santorum has told so many lies that he can't even keep it straight anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are going to laugh at this but the other reason that Santorum gave at the time was that Toomey was too conservative to be elected in PA and Specter was a "lock".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't Rick Santorum fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's Santorum's statement regarding this contretemps to Laura Ingraham, posted a couple of entries below this:
"...We actually had that conversation toward the end of his campaign when he asked me to go out and do some—to do an ad and help him. I said “Arlen.” I said, “I need assurances that if you win this election that you’re going to stand up and fight as chairman of the committee. That is an absolute. To me, you know, the thing I have to have assurances on, before I go out there and say anything publically on television and radio about you. And, he said,” As long as I’m consulted, as chairman of the Judiciary, that’s my responsibility as chairman of the committee, and I’ll do that.” That’s what he said...."
Now someone REALLY CONSERVATIVE parse this and tell me just exactly what "Arlen" promised to do. Is there any indication of specificity there, or are we dealing with "Scottish law".
This kind of horse droppings from Santorum was on vivid display all night the last debate: meaningless bafflegab about Senate insider baseball and horse trading without regard to the nation or the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePretty much nails the Romney problem: Even if you believe Romney's latest attack on one of his rivals, all you have to do is look at what Romney himself did in office and you'll discover he was far worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum recently boasted that he voted for Title X, which as he explains provided public funding of contraceptives through Planned Parenthood.
External Link
I don't understand what is wrong with politicians these days. Have they always been this blatantly hypocritical and cynical?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom 2005 when Specter was in serious risk of not becoming Judiciary Cmte Chair, per Jeffrey Toobin (The New Yorker):
"On November 17th, he was forced to ask his colleagues for the Judiciary chairmanship. After separate meetings with the Senate leadership and with other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, Specter was told that he could assume the chairmanship-on several conditions. At a press conference the next day, Specter made those conditions public. Introduced by Orrin Hatch, of Utah, who was barred by term limits from continuing as Judiciary chairman, Specter recited the provisions of the deal. "I have not and would not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees," Specter said, in the weary monotone of a Soviet prisoner forced to confess his ideological errors. "I have voted for all of President Bush's judicial nominees in committee and on the floor, and I have no reason to believe that I'll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy of nomination.""
Specter is a lying dirtbag.
Read Toobin's whole post here: External Link
I endorse the "magic bullet" theory of dirtbag politicians: any pol who would crawl on his belly to secure a Senate Cmte chairmanship, would do the same in the mud to get re-elected. I have no doubt Santorum is being sincere. Just as I know that there is not way on God's green earth that a junior senator would be allowed to throw a senior senator from his own party and state beneath the train.
I realize this is a sideshow issue, but the fact that Romney is getting character witness color commentary from Arlen Specter is just sick, twisted politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Santorum backed Specter over Toomey. Toomey would have lost to the Democrat if he were to get the nomination, Specter was always going to win and without using much resources that could be used in other senate races. Santorum, not wanting to give the Democrats that seat gift wrapped supported Specter to deny the Democrats that seat and to save the party resources to win other races like the South Dakota race where the Republicans ousted the Democratic leader. That is what you sometimes have to do in states that are not red states. The last time Pennsylvania voted for a Republican President was in 1988. Toomey was able to win the senate seat in 2010 in the same way Santorum won his in 1994, by riding a wave, 2004 was not a wave year.
By the way I have nothing against Toomey, he is probably the best Senator to come out of Pennsylvania in a very long time, the best I can remember, it is just that he needed a boost in order to be electable in that state, I hope he gets another one in 2016 so he can stay there for a while.
Santorum can't say that, because this year he is the unelectable candidate that a Senator Santorum would not support for pragmatic reasons, partly why he supported Romney over Huckabee in 2008 even though Huckabee is probably ideologically closer to Santorum when it comes to the "Compassionate" Conservative stuff than Romney is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I find funny, is that many of the same people who are attacing Santorum for backing Specter, are also attacking the Tea Party because they backed more conservative candidates that lost. A couple of states that are frequently mentioned by a nearby poster are Nevada and Delaware in 2010.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is tiring. If Rubio had lost in Florida these same guys would be yelling at us for not supporting Crist.
Monday morning quarterbacking in politics is pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Crist was horrible and Rubio is great, worth the risk. Why are you comparing morons like Angle and O'Donnell to Toomey and Rubio?
Crist if elected would have switched parties ultimately, like yours and Santroum's buddy Specter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't the GOP have 55 senators after the 2004 election? Why was Specter even necessary? If he opposed Bush's nominations as the Judiciary Committee chairman he could have been removed.
Santorum had a very practical reason to support Specter: He thought he picked up votes from PA moderates that way (Simialrly, Specter supported him him to get conservative votes). It's not an inherently unreasonable position, though of course the Tea Partiers condemn this sort of thing normally. Anyone who opposed O'Donnell and favored Mike Castle was immediately condemned by her mob of supporters as a RINO. Now that same people defend Santroum for supporting Specter. It's ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was needed to break fillibusters.
The protestations of those who's only goal is destroying Santorum are getting amusing.
It doesn't matter that Specter lied, what matters is finding some way to justify an attack on Santorum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse