Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
One of the biggest red flags in Rick Santorum's senatorial record was his endorsement of turncoat Arlen Specter in 2004. Those here on this forum who might otherwise be sympathetic to Sen. Santorum's candidacy repeatedly point to how unsettling it is that Santorum backed a liberal Republican over rock-ribbed conservative Pat Toomey. In last night's debate, Mitt Romney exploited this vulnerability when he demanded an explanation of Santorum for this apparent lapse in judgment (minute 3:05 in the clip below).
Santorum's explanation (at minute 4:40 in the clip):
Why I supported Arlen Specter: number one) because Arlen Specter was a Senator who was going to be the chairman of the judiciary committee at a time when the most important issue that was coming up in the next session of Congress was two to three Supreme Court nominees that were going to be available and one, maybe two of them or maybe all three were going to be out of the conservative block.
And Arlen Specter as chairman of the judiciary committee, we had a conversation as he asked me to support him. I said, 'Will you support the president's nominees?' We had a 51-to-49 majority in the Senate. He said, 'I'll support the president's nominees as chairman.'
So make of that justification what you will. And then recalculate your conclusion adjusting for Arlen Specter's statement in a podcast interview this morning:
"He is not correct. I made no commitment to him about supporting judges," Specter said. "I made no deal."
That Specter should parade his disloyalty is no surprise, and I think it's folly to take him at his word —for all I know, he did indeed make that deal with Sen. Santorum. What concerns me is not Specters dishonorable behavior, but rather Santorum's honorable behavior. Rick Santorum here (and again with his 'I support bills I didn't support' moment) demonstrated that loyalty can be a character flaw when the the object of one's loyalty is an unworthy master.
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Nov '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Just out of curiosity, has Senator Toomey endorsed or otherwise favorably commented on any of the candidates? The Pennsylvania primary is still 2 months away (April 24), but I am wondering if he has in any way shown his hand.
Feb '12
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
According to Google, this is the latest news on that front:
Nov '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Leporello
According to Google, this is the latest news on that front:
4 minutes ago
Thanks for that, Leporello.
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
It sounds as if Pat Toomey is a smart man. As for Rick Santorum's endorsement of Specter, it was a judgment call. Specter made some commitments (regarding Supreme Court judges) and kept them. He seemed and probably was more electable than Toomey, and Santorum suspected that he might need Specter's help when it came to his own re-election (as he probably did). But there were risks involved, as Santorum also no doubt knew. In a place like Pennsylvania, purity is rarely an option. I thought Santorum's response last night incomplete but plausible.
The notion that Santorum is less conservative than Romney is palpably superb. Both operated in blue states. Santorum gave us welfare reform; Romney gave us what even he calls Romneycare -- which he did not represent as a regrettable compromise but touted as "a model for the states" and even at least once, if Newsweek is to be trusted, as "a model for the nation."
Think about it.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 1:05amJun '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Franco
Joseph Stanko
I'd rather have the RINO than the Democrat. What's the point of electing a few rock-ribbed conservatives if they're always in the minority and are powerless to prevent Obama from passing things like Obamacare on a strict party line vote?
Okay, here we go again. This is short-term and myopic thinking, that has long term consequenses. We have to look at the total picture and understand what transpires.
First, we really don't know who is and isn't electable. There are a lot of polls and pundits and they use the past to predict the future, even though each election is different.
We don't know for certain, we have to make a judgement call. But we absolutely have to take it into account.
For instance: I think Romney could beat Obama. I'm certain Ron Paul could not. As for Santorum or Gingrich, I could still be persuaded either way. I'd prefer either of them over Romney, but then again I'd definitely prefer Romney over Obama.
Apr '11
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Tryina sort out the logic of "rather have a RINO than a Democrat."
You mean, you'd rather have a nominal (read: essentially non-) Republican, someone who shares practically zero political philosophy with Republicans, especially on social issues, but even more damaging, on fiscal policy, than a Democrat.
That "INO" part of RINO? It means "In Name Only"...for a reason. Several of them, actually.
From where most of us who truly are longing for the Sweet Meteor of Death sit, we scratch our heads and wonder at such reasoning, what'd you say the difference was again?
Specter is the poster child for RINOs, and one of the many reasons why the GOP is, even by its own, known as the Stupid Party.
Nov '11
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
The New Clear Option: Tryina sort out the logic of "rather have a RINO than a Democrat."
You mean, you'd rather have a nominal (read: essentially non-) Republican, someone who shares practically zero political philosophy with Republicans, especially on social issues, but even more damaging, on fiscal policy, than a Democrat.
That "INO" part of RINO? It means "In Name Only"...for a reason. Several of them, actually.
I guess it depends on whether you hold to the strict definition of a RINO as "someone who literally votes like a Democrat" or whether you use it more casually as "someone who is not nearly as conservative as I wish they were." If the former -- sure, might as well have the real Democrat. If the latter, they're preferable by a mile to a truly doctrinaire agenda-driven liberal.
If all Specter did was vote for the right judges, Santorum had some justification for thinking him preferable. Doesn't make it the right choice, but it's a plausible line of reasoning.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 4:16amJul '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
I'm missing where the usual blue state political gamesmanship rises to anything like the level of an ObomneyCare. And it apparently did serve to get better nominees on the Supreme Court than might otherwise have been possible. Seems to me that that relationship with Specter gave Santorum more influence and political longevity than he might have had otherwise. Specter should have been primaried out long before, but as is the tradition in republics the sovereign people waited for a crisis before taking a serious interest in the public purse and the federal ogre.
Oct '11
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
I prefer to take Rick at his word here, and call the endorsement a calculation. To credit the "loyalty" argument, we have to believe he placed loyalty to one political peer above duty to the nation. If true, that would be the height of selfishness.
As much as I detested the Snarlin' One, I don't think this is a valid argument against Santorum. I could quibble with his calculus, but we did get those Justices.
Dec '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Here's what the Boston Herald editorial page said in 2004:
Feb '12
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Absolutely essential reading on this topic is Michael Barone's Jan 2 column, which has a convincing explanation. Specter gave tremendous help to Santorum in an earlier election, even tho he knew Santorum was to his right and even tho he owed nothing to Santorum. It would have been gross ingratitude for Santorum to have stabbed him in the back by endorsing Toomey.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-did-santorum-endorse-specter-2004/287596
Dec '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Leigh
I don't see how this really compares. It's like a Republican governor applying for an NLCB waiver, or other things they do with whoever is in office. Trying to get someone in power to do what you want them to is not the same thing as trying to keep them in power.
Fair enough, but recall who was ideologically closer to Specter in 2004:
Other than stem-cell research, there wasn't much room between Romney and Specter back then.
Jun '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
The New Clear Option: Tryina sort out the logic of "rather have a RINO than a Democrat."
That "INO" part of RINO? It means "In Name Only"...for a reason.
If you define it that literally then yes, you're right. I used the term as it is commonly used on Ricochet, as Leigh put it "someone who is not nearly as conservative as I wish they were."
Take for instance in the "RINO Intervention" podcast where the RINO in question was none other than our illustrious founder Rob Long. Now, Rob may be more moderate than most members, but I hardly think he agrees with the Democrats on most issues.
Aug '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
"Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum"
Excellent title, Diane.
I'm imagining that Specter endorsement following Santorum around with chains late at night, walking through the walls moaning and clanking, like something out of "A Christmas Carol".
Dec '10
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: "Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum"
Excellent title, Diane.
I'm imagining that Specter endorsement following Santorum around with chains late at night, walking through the walls moaning and clanking, like something out of "A Christmas Carol". · 5 minutes ago
"A specter is haunting the GOP - the specter of Reaganism"?
Nov '11
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
So no Ricochet member is curious as to why Rick Santorum supported Arlen Specter in 1996 for president when the Republicans had just captured the House of Representatives the year before for the first time in 40 years?!!!!
If Rick Santorum can't stand up to Arlen Specter, how's he supposed to stand up to world dictators?
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 6:10amNov '11
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
That just seems so weird that we're wanting more verification/evidence/explanation to emerge before forming opinions.
Feb '12
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Eric Rasmusen: Absolutely essential reading on this topic is Michael Barone's Jan 2 column, which has a convincing explanation. Specter gave tremendous help to Santorum in an earlier election, even tho he knew Santorum was to his right and even tho he owed nothing to Santorum. It would have been gross ingratitude for Santorum to have stabbed him in the back by endorsing Toomey.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-did-santorum-endorse-specter-2004/287596 · 1 hour ago
Thank you, Eric. I'm surprised no one else posted this before. It is the most credible explanation I have heard.
Apr '11
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Joseph Stanko
If you define it that literally then yes, you're right. I used the term as it is commonly used on Ricochet, as Leigh put it "someone who is not nearly as conservative as I wish they were."
The usage of "RINO" you and others, including the likes of Ricochet's own Rob Long make of the term dilutes its actual meaning. I get the nuance. However, that usage makes the 'O' entirely meaningless.
Where I vote, we routinely deal with registered "Republicans" who do in fact "vote as Democrats." There's no fundamentalism involved in reading the word "only" to mean...only.
When it comes to RomneyCare, for instance, there's practically speaking, no discernable difference between it and Obamacare. The fact that one was put into place by a Republican governor is Exhibit A for why RINOs are killing the Republican party. They drive at least as many social conservatives to vote third party as much as social conservatives are reputed to drive moderates to vote Democrat.
Re: Specter Endorsement Continues to Haunt Santorum
Paul A. Rahe:
Both operated in blue states. Santorum gave us welfare reform; Romney gave us what even he calls Romneycare -- which he did not represent as a regrettable compromise but touted as "a model for the states" and even at least once, ifNewsweekis to be trusted, as "a model for the nation."
Think about it.
Professor Rahe: If we're saying that Romney "gave us" a Massachusetts health plan on which he was forced to compromise with a fleet of rabidly liberal Democrats, then I think it's fair to apply the transitive property to Santorum's massive, Arlen Specter-sized lapse in judgment:
Santorum gave us Specter.
And Specter cast the deciding vote on Obamacare.
So...
Edited on February 26, 2012 at 3:59pm