-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Aaron wants to know why I don’t hold Santorum’s endorsement of Specter against him. I’ve explained that very thing at this site several times, but as briefly as I can, let me do so again.
Context is everything. First, there are certain unwritten rules of politics. One of them is that if both US Senators from a state are of the same party, the other one ALWAYS endorses his fellow incumbent for re-election. Period. I cannot think of a single case where this rule didn’t hold. Even at the time, therefore, it didn’t bother me that Santorum endorsed Specter, but I was furious at Bush for doing so, rather than staying out of the race. It was beneath a president’s station to get involved in that way in an ordinary primary battle. Pat Toomey himself has said he does not hold it against Santorum. Frankly, I myself was 100% on board in wanting Toomey to win, but the Santorum endorsement didn’t faze me. (Santorum himself had benefitted in 2000 from Specter’s strong endorsement of him. There is such a thing as loyalty in politics.)
Second, as somebody who was intimately involved with the judicial battles at the time, I knew that Santorum was the single hardest fighter in Senate party leadership, and a harder fighter even than some of the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee, on behalf of conservative judicial nominees. Figuratively speaking, Santorum really bled for the cause. He and his staff were superb on the issue. When he said then that he wanted the sure thing of a Specter victory over the iffy chance of a Toomey victory, in order to ensure a key Republican vote for judicial nominees, it made sense to me. What I didn’t know at the time was that (as Santorum claims now, and from my knowledge and sources the claim is ENTIRELY believable) Santorum actually secured a pledge from Specter to this effect: Specter would support all Bush nominees unless they were ethically challenged; i.e., would not oppose any of them for philosophical/issue reasons. Santorum also knew that cover from a “moderate” Democrat like Specter could help provide the “bridge” or “cover” necessary to get a few moderate Dems not to oppose a nominee. That’s how the Senate works.
How did that pledge turn out? Actually, well. Specter opposed not a single nominee. Indeed, his support for Sam Alito may well have made the difference between the Dems merely opposing him and the Dems instead actually filibustering his nomination to death — which, thank goodness, didn’t happen. I myself fought hard for nearly three years to get the excellent Bill Pryor of Alabama confirmed for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; Specter’s aid, in 2005, ended up being crucial for that to happen. Meanwhile, by virtue of being chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Specter surprised me as well: It turned out that his moderate image and refusal to castigate the Dems actually added credibility to the proceedings so the media amazingly did NOT portray the various nominees’ hearings as a railroad job.
(By the way, Specter was NOT part of the infamous “Gang of 14.”)
So, on judges at least, and for that matter on most subjects for four years, Specter actually moved rightward. Look at his voting record from 2005 through 2008, and I believe you’ll see it was significantly right of where it was from, say, 1992 to 1996. None of which made Specter any less of a Snarlin Arlen, but it is testament to the fact that until Obama got in and Specter ran for the hills, he actually was far more helpful than not to conservatives, after the Santorum endorsement helped him get re-elected.
Finally, by way of context, I cannot think of a single other time when Santorum really “stuck it” to conservatives. (Of course he may have cast an unwelcome vote or two, but so does everybody.) For 16 years he was one of the most consistent, stalwart conservatives in Congress, a real fighter for the cause both publicly and privately. One endorsement doesn’t negate that record. Likewise, if Gingrich’s only major political sin against conservatives had been his endorsement of Scozzafava, it would be not a huge deal. But when he not only did it, but INSULTED conservatives in doing so, and then added to it by so many other insults and/or betrayals of conservatives (which I won’t recount again, because I’ve done so several times in previous weeks), it certainly becomes relevant.
For Santorum, in other words, the “bad” endorsement was the proverbial exception that proves the rule (the rule being that he is a reliable and effective conservative), whereas for Gingrich the “bad” endorsement was part of a long-running pattern of objectionable behavior, making the objectionable behavior the rule for Gingrich, not the exception.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/13/re-specter-scozzafava-etc
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
bobmontgomery| 12.13.11 @ 8:46PM
Yes, probably.
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 9:58PM
Whatever qualifications and disqualifications Santorum may possess as a Republican candidate, he simply will not receive the nomination and will not be elected POTUS[Possibly he could either run for another Pennsylvania office or perhaps move to another state [Kennedy style] and run there accordingly] !!!!!!
Silver Bullet| 12.14.11 @ 7:13AM
Why do you insist on living down to your moniker?
Silver Bullet| 12.13.11 @ 10:07PM
Quin's detailed explanation is spot-0n. He needs to remind you other readers of this: the balance of the Senate was at stake, and if the Republicans had lost the chamber, there would have been a Democrat heading the Judiciary Committee.
Although Toomey lost to Specter in the primary by only 1% of the votes, Santorum had judged that Toomey would have a very tough general election campaign, in a State with roughly 1-million more registered Democrats than Republicans. Santorum guessed that the Republican Party as a whole stood a better chance of retaining control of the Senate with Specter, than losing the Senate with Toomey going down to expected defeat.
Dear readers: it is quite possible, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, to guess that Santorum mis-judged the risk of losing the general election with Toomey -- after all, didn't Toomey get elected in 2010? But, times change, and it is inadmissible to compare the election circumstances of year 2004 to those of 2010.
Yes, dear readers, it is reasonable to have a dig-in-the-heels kind of "mania": that we'd rather have gone down to defeat with Toomey than see Specter get in for another term. (I myself was furious with Santorum over this for years; but finally realized we were letting the "good be the enemy of the perfect" when we felt like we just HAD to have Toomey as the nominee in 2004, EVEN IF it meant losing the whole Senate!! Talk about irrational!)
But my recollection is the same as Quin's: that Santorum endorsed Specter ONLY after Specter had pledged that, as Judiciary Chair, he would allow Bush's conservative nominees to go through to the general Senate for a straight up-or-down vote -- something that Democrats, if they'd controlled the Senate upon defeat of Toomey in the general election, would never have allowed at all! And Specter did prove himself good for his word on this crucial, crucial point!
Somehow to get yourselves into such a rabid froth over a "judgment call" that Santorum made regarding a very real need we had to continue control of the Senate to get Judicial nominees through, this is just irrational in the extreme. (I myself now feel as though I was being irrational about this whole deal -- it is harder to get "jilted" by someone you "love" than by somebody you never gave a hoot about!!)
You people need to get real. Santorum is NOT some sort of milque-toast conservative. His long record shows he is extremely conservative, and very courageous, especially on the pro-life side. His personal life shows his conservative bona-fides just as much as Sarah Palin proved hers, and Michele Bachman proved hers! He is just as conservative, if not more so.
YOU IOWANS!!! LISTEN UP!!
Silver Bullet| 12.13.11 @ 10:34PM
Sorry, wrote it backwards about "the perfect is the enemy of the good." (paragraph 4 above)....
Santorum is a helluva lot better than the other imperfect candidates out there!! There is a tendency among all of us to invest ourselves "psychologically" in believing only the good about "our" favorite candidate. Please re-consider Rick Santorum! He did what he thought was best for the appointment of a conservative judiciary in a year when we risked losing the entire Senate -- it is so easy to say he's a "traitor," etc. He isn't!!
IOWANS: please LISTEN UP!!
shipley130| 12.14.11 @ 1:53PM
Rick Santorum believes that it's still a bad thing for a woman to get an abortion if she was raped or in the case of incest. Sick Rick, no thanks.
SCM| 12.14.11 @ 1:52PM
I keep wondering when Santorum will get his moment in the sun, like most all the other candidates. Perhaps a good portion of those Iowans who have jumped on Newt's wagon in recent weeks will reconsider in the next few weeks and take a better look at Santorum. He seems to be a solid conxervative without the baggage that Newt hauls around. Seems like a good choice to me.
shipley130| 12.14.11 @ 1:51PM
Rick Santorum has the attitude that even if a woman is impregnated from a rape and has an abortion, it's still a bad thing to have that abortion. I find that to be a very sick and disturbing opinion and I will NEVER vote for him. In addition to that, supporting a crook like Spectre adds to the pile of cowpies.