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.
Dumb article. There is no reason to believe that Toomey would have won the senatorial seat. Given the nature of elections these days, it would have been at least a 50/50 proposition in liberal pennsylvania.
On the other hand, we know that Specter DID usher Roberts and Alito through the confirmation process.
Also a dumb article because Specter helping with Roberts and Alito did not have to be a deal between Specter and Santorum. It could have been between Santorum and GWBush.
And Santorum specifically said he did it for the team on behalf of GWBush. How are such messages passed?
I’m betting there’s probably no piece of paper anyplace. They are understandings based on conversations.
If you are going to use Spector as a source, I will cite Scottish law and say this is “not proved”.
Honestly, the ‘babe in the woods’ nonsense we are hearing here from the anti-Santorum crowd is just amazing. It’s like politics is somehow a shock to them.
People fail to accept that there’s no ‘pure’ politician out there. Santorum owed Specter from previous election help, and reciprocated. We also have to accept that Pennsylvania is an iffy state (especially at the time), and Toomey was seen as too much of a gamble.
Do I like that decision? No. Do I accept it as a political calculation, yes.
I’m wondering who these people who are bashing Rick now happen to think is pure enough to be casting these stones? I mean Newt from the couch alongside Nancy, with Fannie checks in the pocket? Please. Romney is obviously no conservative, and never has been. Paul, well he’s Paul and that doesn’t really deserve further discussion.
Look, I like Santorum, and I like Gingrich. I could live with either option, but the way people are around here, they are more than happy to let the nonexistent perfect be the enemy of the good, and then let Romney slip by so we don’t get the good, but the awful.
I have not liked or respected Santorum since he helped Lott kill the impeachment proceedings against that gutter snipe Clinton. I accept Rick as a typical politician, so the sooner he gets off his 'righteous' soap box then maybe I can accept him as being who he really is.
>I have not liked or respected Santorum since he helped Lott kill the impeachment proceedings against that gutter snipe Clinton.
Impeaching Clinton fully would have been suicide for the GOP. While he might have deserved it technically, the American people didn’t think so. The media had diffused the issues down to a ‘mere’ sex scandal, and that was not nationally seen as enough to boot a president who was generally seen as pretty successful. The biggest problem the Senate faced at the time was the pathetically limited scope of the prosecution. Clinton had a lot more dirt on his hands than screwing around with Lewinsky, but nobody was willing to touch the dark stuff. Given what was handed the Senate, I can understand what they did (even if it was unpleasant).
Maybe I don’t watch enough Santorum speeches, but I don’t get the ‘righteous’ vibe that much. Yes, he does have a history of a strong family without any real moral lapses. However he readily admits that he has played politics like the rest of the people in the game. Any politician who claims they have not is merely lying through their teeth.
Now, I admit I am not a Santorum fan, for many reasons... But, am I going to take Spectre at his word either??
I am sorry, since there was NO trial with live witnesses and the production of evidence it is NOT possible to say how the American people would have reacted.
and which of the candidates for the GOP do you think is an ‘appropriate’ or ‘acceptable’ candidate. Your venom is obvious. I am just curious if it is directed at all the candidates or just Santorum.
Since I actually remember how disappointed folks were (did not need to check the history of posts or articles) with Rick about Arlen, I know his short comings.
He hardly presents himself as a ‘Messiah’. All Santorum has done is laid out what he would do.
With the venom you have spewed my guess is you are either for Paul or Mittens (seemingly one in the same)
>I am sorry, since there was NO trial with live witnesses and the production of evidence it is NOT possible to say how the American people would have reacted.
Yes, but the whole of the proceedings had been reduced to him lying about having sex with Lewinsky and covering it up. It had been reduced to a tempest in a teapot, and the GOP charging full bore into that would have been suicide.
Honestly I blame the House more.
Do you have a link for that? I have done a pretty lot of research on this to try and be accurate, and I never came across anything where he mentioned that... maybe it was in a PA paper...
I think that Mitt Romney is the last person in the world who should challenge another candidate's veracity. Has Mitt ever met a flip that he couldn't flop?
With the venom you have spewed my guess is you are either for Paul or Mittens (seemingly one in the same)
Does telling your followers, "God called me to run," qualify as Messianic to you? It does to me. But, more importantly, Santorum has said that his character is of the quality that Americans want in the White House, as opposed to Newt's and his personal baggage.
If you would have taken 2 minutes, instead of guessing, you would know I am an ardent Newt supporter, who, btw, Santorum has described as erratic, dangerous, "the same as Obama", "not to be trusted", running around taking credit for things that the congress did, like a "CEO taking credit for his company that makes cars" - and that's for starters.
I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I wrote this a few weeks ago to someone who wasn't, and it made him understand the objections of many Christians when it comes to Santorum:
"On Santorum: No, I’ve never met him. I’ve read about him, some of the corruption he is associated with, I’ve watched him, I’ve listened when he was disrespectful to his mentor for political expediency’s sake. I study his voting record. I know a charity of his gathered millions of dollars, and only spent 32% of their funds on the poor, for whose benefit the charity was formed; and that the normative ethical ratio is for most charities to spend 82% of their funds on their targeted constituency - while most of Santorum’s donations went to give his political friends cushy “charity” jobs. Good Neighbor, I think it was called.
I listened as this so-called “good” Christian man stood on a stage and said his character was the quality of character that Americans needed in the White House, unlike the character of others who had personal baggage in their past, without once mentioning the forgiving saving transforming power of Jesus Christ, who is the center of the faith Sanctimonium so piously professes to live by... and sets his principles upon...
If you are not a Christian, you can’t really appreciate what is so appalling and galling about the man, in light of true christians, who don’t abrogate the work of Christ with attempts at self righteousness attained by heir outside of the cup persona and behaviors.. What you are doing, and why so many sincere Christians have great problems with Santorum, is he, as well as you, overlook how the transformative power an encounter with the True Christ impacts a man’s entire soul and being; he becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus, old things pass away, all things are made new.
Newt has confessed his sins, said he did things he is ashamed of, has sought to make reconciliation with the members of his family, and others he has hurt. He has blamed no one else but himself. He has come to a new and apparently cleansing faith in Christ Jesus and, most importantly, there is no evidence of any of the same behavioral sins in his life since this long journey of his repentance, rebirth, and renewal began.
And, yet, people cannot let the man leave his past behind. After 20 years - think of it - 20 years - there are still a majority of people in the press, politics - Santorum, and a lot of his supporters - who consider Newt the same man he was 20 years ago, and dare he try to take one step away from his past, to step into the new, as his faith promises him he can, they are there loudly, hypocritically, self-righteously to pull him right back. They won’t let him step away from his sinful past, though no apparent evidence of that sinful past exists any longer, or any evidence that he is the same man he was 20 years ago. He is being judged as the man he was - while that man no longer exists. He is, I repeat, a new creature in Christ Jesus.
But no one, not Santorum or his minions, will allow for that, or accept that might ever be true.
So, the final finally: it says more about the people who can’t let Newt be this new creature many believing Christians trust he is, if only because they are likewise sinners, great sinners, saved and transformed by the same power that Newt claims has saved and transformed him.
It is religious bigotry, hard hearts, and people like Santorum, who behaviorally have hit many of the right notes in their outward lives, though it is hard to believe that is extensively true - I am sure we will find out - whose self-righteousness - whose pride in their outward manifestations of sinlessness, and acceptable conduct, that causes believing Christians to distance themselves from him, to see him as a hypocrite, saved more by his self-perceived good works than the miraculous, healing work of a Perfect Savior, by his love and tender mercy, towards those who are fully unworthy.
Santorum is about none of that, he is about a gospel of works and self denial, of earned salvation. Newt is simply a sinner being saved by by the gift of grace, he could never earn or be worthy of... through no goodness of his own... the same as most of those Christians who can’t support Santorum’s apostasy."
People do not despis him. Conservatives here despise him. There’s a difference. I was at two debates thisnyear..the Las Vegas one and the last one in. AZ.
The majority of people are for Romney. Also, I live in a vacation community, meaning people visit from all around the country so I meet a lot of people from around the Country. I talk to them. Majority will ONLY vote for Romney. We are talking Republicans, moderate Dems and independents.
Unfortunately the people on this site believe they are the majority voice. But they are wrong. I work in the Republican party, in one of the most Conservative States.. And I am not a Romney supporter.. I am, however, a realist.
Really? You do not belivemhe will overturn Obamacare as he says every single time he opens his mouth?
Bravo!
The blind koolaid drinkers who reflexively support him, defend him at all costs. But if this insanity continues and he wins, they will regret every minute of it, or they will end up extremely bitter and convey every excuse and apology on the books for their undeserved hero, when he becomes a historical disgrace to the Conservative label.
No it is NOT Messianic to say that God has called you to do something..... In my own Life I have used that phrase. And yes I am a Christian. This is one of the dumbest things you have ever said. When a person is called to do something, who are you to say it cannot be true or must be delusional.
Newt is erratic. I remember well his time in Congress ( not just as speaker).
Your venom speaks volumes and tells me much more about you than about the one you support. Nice try. Have an angst filled day
It sounds like my post got under your skin a little... maybe you should read it again...
To say God has called me as a way to validate or as an endorsement of a political candidacy is way out of bonds, and if you can’t see that, I doubt anyone could help you see it...
and for the sake of accuracy,
here’s what I said:”Does telling your followers, “God called me to run,” qualify as Messianic to you? It does to me.”
I didn’t say it was inaccurate or delusional, I said it qualified as messianic... If Santorum wants to proclaim that God, indeed, has called him to run, what does that say about the people opposed to him - that they are against God’s will? this is a very murky place where no politician needs to go, ever.
It is the manner by which despots are born. You need to think a little... this is exactly what Barack did in 2008... he was the hope and change the world was waiting for... and it’s happening again, on the republican side, your response is proof of that..
You have a wonderful day...
If you say someone is Messianic in their thinking AND if in fact they are not the Messiah then indeed that person is delusional. Your limited ability to use logic has you tied in knots.
You pooh pooh Newt’s ‘personal baggage’ and slam Santorum every step of the way. They are both Washington politicians. They both have much in their backgrounds that can be damaging.
Our focus as conservatives should be clearer than this stuff that you prattle on about. None of these candidates is ideal. Some are even dangerous. To compare Santorum and his views to Obama is ridiculous on its face. ( and yes you do that when you say that the last Messianic to run for President was O).
Clearly you are out of your depth. Your comments do not get under my skin in any manner. Your lack of thoughtful discussion on the other hand...
Say by the by How is Nanacy Pelosi working out for Newt? You know that global warming thing that he was so hot on before?
’ If Santorum wants to proclaim that God, indeed, has called him to run, what does that say about the people opposed to him - that they are against God’s will? this is a very murky place where no politician needs to go, ever.’
Flawed logic....It is not mutually exclusive. God may well have chosen many people to run for a nomination-——Since when are you so wonderful as to underestand the mind of God????
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.