Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Qbert
This article makes no sense. I don't like Romney and I do like Santorum, but his argument that he supported Spector in 2004 to help get Bush's Supreme Court nominees confirmed is laughable on its face. So what if Spector lost and Toomey got in. We still would have had 55 senators. And even if Toomey lost, we would have had 54. I am sure any one of them would have been able to lead the judiciary committee, at least as well as Spector. Let's face it, Santorum has no reasonable explanation for why be backed Spector in 2004.
4 posted on 02/23/2012 2:53:41 PM PST by Mike10542
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mike10542

"This article makes no sense."

The proof is in the pudding. Roberts and Alito are on the Court.

Specter bolting years later and becoming a Dem was due to the inept GOP leadership at the time, and Specter's slipperiness.

12 posted on 02/23/2012 2:59:26 PM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542

I’m sure Rick supported him because he was returning the favor for getting Specter’s endorsement for himself. To me that would have been maybe a better answer. Say that Specter helped him in his run and he made a promise to do the same for him, and couldn’t go back on his promise even though he disagreed with him on some issues. And for that matter throw in that he doesn’t consider an endorsement a big deal because he trusts the voters to make up their own minds. Just look at how Romney’s endorsements in South Carolina, Minnesota, etc. worked out.


14 posted on 02/23/2012 3:01:37 PM PST by JediJones (Watch "Gingrich to Michigan: Change or Die" on YouTube. Best Speech Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542

Well, actually, Santorum backed Specter for three reasons:

1) Because Rove and Bush twisted his arm, and said that Toomey couldn’t get elected.

2) Because Bush said that he needed Specter to confirm his SCOTUS choices. Don’t underestimate Specter on that; I don’t trust the guy any further than I can kick him, but he was very skillful at that sort of job. And he succeeded. The Democrats had enough Senators to filibuster, as they have often done to block appointments, but Specter put the pressure on them—before he went back to his usual crazy ways.

3) Santorum endorsed Specter because Specter had endorsed him. It wasn’t easy for a conservative to win in that state, so Specter’s “centrist” endorsement of a conservative was valuable. Rick returned the favor.

Rick later lost in 2006 for a number of reasons. I would chiefly blame Bush and Rove, who won in a landslide in 2004 and then proceeded to blow it by disappointing the base. Few conservatives won in 2006. It was a Democrat landslide. And Rick was further handicapped by a popular opponent and by the stupid Toomey supporters who stayed home in a snit. Good work, guys, putting Casey into office.


19 posted on 02/23/2012 3:07:05 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542
This article makes no sense. I don't like Romney and I do like Santorum, but his argument that he supported Spector in 2004 to help get Bush's Supreme Court nominees confirmed is laughable on its face.

It makes perfect sense, as a matter of fact it was exactly the argument GW made. Unless you have another reason for the comment.

26 posted on 02/23/2012 3:16:24 PM PST by itsahoot (Much easier to tear down a building, than to build one. Bigger mess though.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542

I assume it’s many things, including payback for Specter supporting Santorum in his first Senate race, and throughout his career.

Much like Sarah Palin endorsed McCain over a more conservative primary challenger in a senate race in 2010, apparently as people here said to pay him back for picking her in 2008.

Now, Specter turned out to be a worse senator than even John McCain, so while the decisions were similar in type, they were not in scope.

Of course, if Toomey had lost in 2004, as he was likely to do, Obamacare would have passed in 2009 anyway, after the democrats took over (a democrat elected in 2004 would have been more liberal than even Arlen Specter was after he turned democrat).

It is however possible that even with a democrat senator, we’d have gotten the two supreme court nominees — hard to say whether the RINO who would have ended up in the judiciary committee would have been more likely to oppose the conservative judges; at least Specter didn’t.

But it’s really easy to look back 6 years later and pretend you’d have known the outcome. Fact is, people who serve together, and have received political help throughout their careers, tend to help back, like Sarah Palin did in 2010 with McCain.

And if McCain votes with the democrats, I guess some will blame Palin for it, but I’m guessing most won’t. (The other argument would surely be that her endorsement was meaningless to that contest, while Santorum’s was critical. Although it’s hard to imagine how much help an endorsement from a guy who loses his election 2 years later by almost 20% could have been.....)


33 posted on 02/23/2012 4:15:32 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542

Toomey would not be head of the Judiciary who votes candidate up or down. That has been explained numerous times. Toomey would have just been a regular vote with ZERO power.


37 posted on 02/23/2012 4:36:41 PM PST by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542
I am sure any one of them would have been able to lead the judiciary committee, at least as well as Spector.

That is laughable on its face. Unfortunate as it might have been no replacement would have had the influence that Specter had on the Judiciary Committee. That is how the Senate works sometimes. It's just the reality of it.

39 posted on 02/23/2012 4:47:43 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542

Spector was the chairman of the judiciary committee. He could have made it very difficult to get good appointments through. I didn’t like it at the time that bush and santorum did it, but it proved to be smart to get conservatives through the committees.


41 posted on 02/23/2012 5:15:34 PM PST by ilgipper (Everything you get from the government was taken from someone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Mike10542

According to Wiki, had Spector lost in 2004 but the GOP had gotten the majority, next in line for the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Widestance, er Larry Craig.

Maybe that had something to do with it?


43 posted on 02/23/2012 6:03:08 PM PST by parksstp (I pick Rick! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson