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!
There is no way on earth I believe anything Arlene Sphincter says.
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.
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.
And why would we beleive Spector?
Leaving aside how much Specter should be believed, has King ever before gone after an interview to “prove” that a candidate, any candidate, was not truthful in a debate? How far out of his way did King go to vet Obama?
This is more just Breitbart propaganda and lies.
I heard an interview today on the radio with Arlen Specter and Michael Smerconish, and Specter said the same thing, that he never made a “promise” to Santorum. Except, after Smerconish pressed him Specter said although he made no specific verbal “promise” (freaking duh, nobody would admit such a thing anyway) he said that when Santorum asked him if he, Specter, as the incoming chair of the Judiciary Committee, would help with Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, Specter assured him he would treat them “fairly”. Santorum then went on to do as Bush asked, and endorsed Specter over homo hugger Toomey. I got the distinct impression it was your typical political “wink and nod” agreement. And indeed, Specter helped shepherd through Bush’s nominees, who now sit on the Supreme Court.
This story is a load of horse manure.
LOL. OK, so now we are supposed to believe Arlen Specter? Please. The man tells 7 lies before breakfast each morning.
Looks to me like old Arlen just took one for the team.
You can listen to today’s Michael Smerconish interview with Specter at the link below. Scroll down to “SMERCONISH PODCAST HIGHLIGHTS”, and that interview is the first clip. The whole clip is about 10 minutes long, but you can skip right to about the 7:45 mark and listen to Specter explain that he assured Santorum that he had always supported the president’s nominees in the past, including Rehnquist, Scalia, et al, and that he would treat Bush’s nominees the same way he treated those nominees (wink, nod).
Why would any Republican believe Spector?
If Arlen’s lips move, he lies. Back 2 logic class with you.
Santorum, Spector, what’s the difference? Today you believe S. because he’s running for POTUS and you don’t like Romney? Geez! What’s the difference between S. and S.?
Specter is lying to help Romney. This is dated 2004 and specter did not dispute it then. Why now?
Specter’s poetic justice
By Dimitri Vassilaros, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, November 12, 2004
Ways to get us
Be a Facebook fan
Follow us on Twitter
E-mail Newsletters
On your mobile
Arlen Specter makes fellow U.S. senator John Kerry look consistent.
But do not blame Pennsylvania’s senior senator for being himself. Blame the state’s junior senator and fellow Republican, Rick Santorum, for enabling Specter to be, well, Specter.
Blame President Bush, too.
Specter, the likely next chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, is flip-flopping so often about applying a pro-abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees that the 74-year-old has confused everyone, including himself.
Specter warned Bush last week not to pick judicial candidates who are “too” conservative and/or pro-lifers. If Bush did, Specter and his remaining fellow liberals in the Senate would be displeased.
He flip-flopped the next day, using nuance to distance himself from his own word. Picture a round of the video game “Pong” played at warp speed.
************************************
To the untrained eye, it might appear that Specter has betrayed Bush and Santorum. After all, the two actually convinced conservatives in the spring primary that Specter could be counted on. But they did not add that Specter always could be counted on to be himself.
The two spent considerable political capital to drag Specter across the finish line. He barely defeated U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey — a real conservative — by slightly more than 17,000 votes.
****************************
But within a day after his near loss, Specter started distancing himself from Bush. Outraged conservatives felt betrayed.
In the July issue of Crisis magazine, Santorum tried to allay their concerns. He wrote that “Sen. Specter ... has said repeatedly that he doesn’t apply a litmus test for judges.”
He did not add that Specter also hinted repeatedly in the general election that he would.
Santorum again had to allay fears. He issued a statement after Specter’s warning.
“I asked Sen. Specter to clarify his comments, which he did in a statement. In that statement, he clarified that he does not support a litmus test for nominees with regard to their stance on abortion. Senate Republicans are committed to approving all of the president’s judicial nominations despite the Democrats’ rhetoric that they are committed to block judges who fail their litmus tests.”
Damn those Democrats.
Curiously, Specter voted to confirm every current member of the Supreme Court, from pro-choice to pro-life ones, except Justice John Paul Stevens, who was on the bench before Specter was a senator.
Even though he voted for eight, Specter told a reporter that the current court lacks legal “giants.” That glaring inconsistency is highlighted when considering one court nominee Specter opposed.
He could have added a giant, Judge Robert Bork. Instead, he undercut the Reagan nominee.
Just when you thought Specter’s thinking simply could not be any more topsy-turvy, he said that his spring primary savior does not have a mandate. However, Bush received over 59 million votes, more than any other president.
And if Bush’s 3.5 million-vote victory margin does not give him a mandate, what does a 17,000-vote margin give Specter?
Barring a bloodless coup d’etat in the Senate to prevent him from ascending to the chairmanship of Judiciary, Republicans are forced to count on Specter to confirm the nomination of the next justice.
For Bush and Santorum, surely this is poetic justice.
More Columnist Dimitri Vassilaros headlines
Hope for anybody
Stopping labor’s shakedown
Shop till you drop
Uncle Santa’s rescue
The Unfairness Doctrine
Consider this on Tuesday
Delta Queen deadline
Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood nitpickers
Subscribe to the Tribune-Review today
Read more: Specter’s poetic justice - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_271975.html#ixzz1nH9KV3ru
Hey, didja hear this one? Newt says he sat on that couch with Peloosey because she promised him to vote for 0% Federal tax rate?