Posted on 02/23/2012 9:00:30 PM PST by mitchell001
According to today's video interview between CNN's John King and Arlen Spector at the link below, Rick Santorum lied about Arlen Spector's promise to support George Bush's Supreme Court nominees in exchange for Santorum's endorsement, during the nationally televised debate on CNN Wednesday. This is damaging video evidence of Santorum's lie about this important reason given by Santorum for supporting the liberal Arlen Spector over the conservative Patrick Tomey is at the following link. http://www.breitbart.tv/specter-santorum-lied/ During the debate, Romney claimed that if Tomey was elected as the GOP Senator from Pennsylvania instead of Spector, Obamacare would not have passed by 50 to 49, but would have failed by 50 to 49. Spector voted for Obamacare and Tomey would have voted against it.
Such a bald head lie, as if Toomey would not have supported Bush’s choices!
And we know Specter told the truth because???
So Freepers are going to believe Specter now?
That assumes that Arlen Spector is not lying.
Phil Spector ain’t running, hence no reason to lie!
He’s a Democrat and they never lie...
Santorum and Bush should have supported Toomey. Santo should have told Romney if he had not provided the blueprint for Obamacare then it could not have passed. Thanks Mitt and many other Rinos.
Supporting and getting moderate democrats to cast their vote are two different things.....
There is no way on earth I believe anything Arlene Sphincter says.
If anybody's lying in this scenario, my bet is on Arlen.
We should all understand that Arlen is trying to maintain the illusion of integrity.
I remember this as it unfolded. Specter was head of the Judiciary Committee and there was concern that Bush’s judges couldn’t be approved. Like it or not, Spector was a key to getting those judges.
Whatever back room deals were made, those judges did get approved.
Last night, Mitt Romney explained his 1992 vote for former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary as a vote against Bill Clinton. “I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot,” he said. “And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took.” Romney’s bottom-line? “I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot.”
Okay, fair enough. Romney is saying he’s a Republican, but given the chance to vote against Bill Clinton in 1992, he decided to meddle in the Democratic primary. If he’d had the opportunity to vote for a Republican in the Republican primary, he’d have jumped at the chance, but lacking that, he voted Democratic.
Seems reasonable, except there was a Republican primary. But it’s not just the facts that get in the way of Mitt Romney’s explanation. It’s Mitt Romney himself, because just about each time he’s explained the vote, he’s explained it differently.
On December 15, 1993, The Boston Globe reported that Romney said “he couldn’t recall” for whom he had voted. Six weeks later, the Globe reported that Romney “confirmed he voted for former US Sen. Paul Tsongas.” Why? Because “favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton.” Then in October of 1994, The Washington Post reported that Romney “publicizes his brief stint as a Democrat to support ex-senator Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary.”
Flash forward 13 years to February, 2007 and Romney offered a completely different rationale in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.”
So Romney has gone from not being able to recall who he voted for, to saying he voted for Tsongas because he liked Tsongas, to saying his vote for Tsongas shows he is bipartisan, to saying he voted for Tsongas to oppose Bill Clinton, to saying he voted for Tsongas to weaken the Democrats, to saying he only voted for Tsongas because he didn’t have a chance to vote for a Republican. Except, of course, he did.
So what does Mitt Romney really believe? Nobody really knows. And that probably includes Mitt Romney himself.
Why would Arlen Spector lie about this on national TV? The real question is how is Rick Santorum going to reply to Spector’s claim that he made no promise about supporting Supreme Court nominees. Santorum has a major problem here. Conservative voters have a major problem. They may be backing a seriously damaged candidate in Rick Santorum.
“And we know Specter told the truth because???’
We don’t, but that doesn’t stop anyone here who has another candidate. Someone thinks that Specter is telling the truth because Toomey would have supported Roberts and Alito. What the genius is missing is that Santorum probably believed that Specter was more likely to be re-elected than Toomey was to get elected.
In case anyone is wondering, my candidate is James A. Garfield. He’ll never tell a lie or do anything unconstitutional, which is more than I can say for the others.
W supported him first. Someone should ask W whether he was given any assurances. They also should ask Rove, not that I’d trust his answer, but he deserves to be on the record. W may or may not give an answer, but he won’t flat out lie.
That weasel. After Santorum stuck his neck out and backed him in his election, which cost Santorum big time politically, he stabs him in the back.
Specter is a Romney-style RINO, that’s why. He is also probably senile by this point.
Ditto on that. I remember the 2004 campaign as well, being a PA resident. We wanted to keep Specter in as the head of that committee. He was an ass, but he did stick with Bush’s nominees and we have two awesome conservative judges now as e result of that.
Specter turned out to betray us all after the 08 election scared him. I don’t believe anything he says anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.