-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In an amazing moment in last night’s debate, Rick Santorum suddenly found himself under attack by Mitt Romney — for seeing to it that the Supreme Court had two conservative justices.
As usual, the moment was turned upside down by the media.
In 2004, Santorum, then Pennsylvania’s junior Republican Senator, famously supported Arlen Specter for re-nomination over the conservative Pat Toomey. To anyone paying attention in the day, it was crystal clear that Specter, if re-elected, would be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a longtime goal of the one-time Philadelphia District Attorney. Toomey, a businessman, would not only be a freshman if elected, he wouldn’t be sitting on the Judiciary Committee.
The dilemma for Pennsylvania Republicans was clear. While Specter had angered many with his treatment of Reagan nominee Robert Bork, he had rallied in 1991 to a strong defense of Clarence Thomas. In his typical prosecutorial style Specter had shredded Anita Hill’s out-of-the blue accusations, grimly assessing her testimony as “flat out perjury.” Seven years later, then-Senator and now Vice President Joe Biden admitted to Specter (as Specter recounts in his memoirs) that “It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, she was lying.” In the end, his accuser’s credibility in tatters thanks to Specter, Thomas was confirmed. One year later, in 1992, Specter almost lost his re-election bid at to a liberal feminist Democratic nominee because of it.
As conservative Pennsylvania Republicans watched the Specter-Toomey race unfold in the spring of 2004, there was a decided knowledge of what lay just over the horizon. With a re-elected George Bush, and Arlen Specter wielding the gavel of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the expected vacancies on the Supreme Court could in fact install younger conservative Justices who would be able to join conservatives Thomas and Scalia on the bench. The impact of a Court with a re-invigorated conservative wing was incalculable. Santorum, at considerable risk to his own Senate seat and after confronting Specter on the subject, endorsed his senior colleague. Two years later, Santorum did pay the price. His famous 18-point loss came at the hands of not just angry liberals but angry Toomey supporters seeking revenge.
But just as expected, those Court vacancies did appear. The conservative pressure on the Bush White House was so intense that when a second vacancy appeared before the first had even been filled, Bush moved Associate Justice nominee John Roberts up to the suddenly open Chief Justice spot — and then sought to fill the vacant Sandra Day O’Connor seat with his untested White House Counsel Harriet Miers. There was an abrupt, heated rebellion in the ranks. Miers was withdrawn and the Third Circuit’s Samuel Alito became the nominee.
Specter did as promised, skillfully wielding the gavel, barking back at an aggressive Ted Kennedy — and getting both Roberts and Alito confirmed. Where to this moment the two sit as a solid core of the conservative majority on the Court.
It needs to be noted here that two years after Specter almost lost his Senate seat for his support of Thomas in 1992, Mitt Romney was running against Ted Kennedy for a seat in the Senate by promising he would never go back to those dastardly Reagan-Bush years. Years in which conservatives with names like Rehnquist and Scalia were appointed to the Court. One can only wonder whether, had there been a Senator Mitt Romney elected on that pledge rebuking Reagan and Bush, Senator Romney would even have voted for Roberts and Alito since his rebuke of Reagan and Bush is an implicit rebuke of Reagan and Bush appointees Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.
Lost in the gotcha moment last night, in which Romney said that Obamacare — the Son of Romneycare — was made possible by Santorum’s support of Specter, was the unspoken fact of the Supreme Court.
Quite apparently Romney believes the nomination and confirmation of Roberts and Alito was worth putting at risk to defeat Specter in 2004. Risking a Toomey defeat and a certain absence of Specter in the chair leading the confirmation fights for conservative Justices. One can talk all day long about Arlen Specter’s liberalism or cynicism or whatever. But at the end of the day, keeping one’s conservative eye on the ball meant getting two conservatives on the Supreme Court.
In short, whether anyone wants to say it or not, Rick Santorum played a key and much unappreciated role in getting that job done.
The fact that Romney seems clueless to the point is only one more indication that were he to be trusted himself with a Supreme Court nomination — trouble.
Robbie| 2.23.12 @ 10:59AM
Does anyone really believe Romney wouldn't have supported Specter if he was in the Senate? Of course, he would have.
Toomey's a great Senator, but he wouldn't have won in 2004, especially in a presidential year.
When Bush asked Santorum to take one for the team, what was he supposed to do?
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:38AM
He should have told Bush then, and many times and occasions before then, to go F himself.
He should have been told that the GOP in Pennsylvania can sort this out for themselves, and that they don't really need outside interlopers chiming in.
Remember, if the mindset that prevailed in Pennsylvania at the time, meaning the mindset of the Christie/Bush/Sununu/Whitman wing of the party, if that mindset prevailed in Florida -------------------- we would have been saddled with CRIST!
This was Rove thinking he was clever, and proving only that he was too clever by half!
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:35AM
Don't overlook the fact that the father of Romney care, grandfather then to obamacare, fingered Santorum as the man responsible for obamacare.
We really need a paternity DNA test so that we can finally and definitively conclude who is the father of obamacare............
Your Inner Voice| 2.23.12 @ 11:36AM
Aside from Mitt demonstrating his normal tone-deafness on the inner workings and history of conservatism (as opposed to Republicanism), this rather highlights, once again. the antagonism of the Establishment Country-Clubbers to real conservatism even in the Supreme Court, where they lose (perhaps on purpose) to judicial activism historically. There is no victory in compromise, but the Blue-blooders are only about compromise at every level, and in every branch of government. The party elite are going to keep giving away the store as long as they are allowed to stay in their offices, and Mitt is obviously the guy to mind the counter while they are giving away the store. Conservatism is NOT conservatism without social issue front and center, as ALL of a country's social structure (personal responsibility versus entitlement/victim mentality) begin and end with the integrity of the the nuclear family.
Marco2| 2.23.12 @ 11:41AM
Conservatives to arms! St. Rick may have fallen, but the moon king rises again! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha! It's Romney, guys, get used to it.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:41AM
Romney isn't worried about that tone deafness though.
He successfully tied Santorum in knots last night, and that's all he intended.
He fended off questions about his role, ignored Gingrich when he scored points against him, and tied up Santorum, and led him off point to expound on the line item veto of all things!
I have to give it to Romney last night.
Everybody knows I don't like Romney, and really despise Sununu! But Romney played his part last night masterfully.
Frank | 2.23.12 @ 12:06PM
I'm no Romney fan but I know he'll appoint better judges than Obama.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:20PM
He couldn't possibly do worse........
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:21PM
But remember, Brennan, Warren, Souter, ----- all appointed by Republicans........
albert constantine jr| 2.23.12 @ 1:54PM
Blackmun, Stevens--
Rob| 2.23.12 @ 1:39PM
If Romney had been in the Senate back when Specter was, he not only would have supported Specter's re-election, he would have voted like Specter and campaigned for his re-election. Unless he considered it in his own strategic interests to do otherwise. He is just as liberal if not more liberal than Specter on same-sex "marriage," but more devious and less candid. At least Specter clearly articulated his own views, without trying to make advocates of both sides believe that he agreed with them.
Stan| 2.23.12 @ 2:15PM
I get it Lord. Only Romney should be held accountable for past actions,not anyone else.
Dick can support felon voting. Cool. Dick can vote for earmark aftr earmark. Ok. Dick can vote against right to work. No problem.
KG| 2.23.12 @ 2:23PM
It's funny to see "conservatives" calling Obamacare "Son of Romneycare" even as they lambaste Romney for not being conservative. Hey, Dope: the 10th Amendment leaves power over medical care to the states. Thus, Romneycare is constitutional, while Obamacare isn't. The two aren't related. Romney has made this point repeatedly, yet somehow you miss it.
You keep echoing the Obama White House on this point. Why? Because, like Santorum and the Democrats, you have never heard of the 10th Amendment.
Even as Santorum missed it in voting for the $17 trillion unfunded Medicare Part D, which is totally unconstitutional. Why? Because the 10th Amendment reserves control over medical care to the states. Just as Romney said.
Dave| 2.23.12 @ 2:24PM
Seems to me Santorum claimed he talked to Specter, and had his assurance he would support Roberts and Alito, then today we hear from Specter he had no such meeting and made no such deal with Santorum. So is Santorum lying? or as he admitted last night...he sold his principles and took one for the team? To title this article claiming Romney attacked Santorum for supporting Roberts and Alito is a lie and the worst type of smear I have seen. If that be the case then Santorum supported Spector to pass Obamacare. Jeffrey Lord... shame on you!
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 2:27PM
Romney was right.
Santorum supported Specter over Toomey, what an irony, PA voters dumped Specter and sent Toomey in the senate, Santorum failed to get Sen. Toomey's endorsement. Specter was the 60th "deciding" vote passing Obamacare. Had Santorum helped Toomey, Obamacare would have never been passed in the senate. Santorum contributed passing Obamacare. Santorum is screwed.
Stan| 2.23.12 @ 2:42PM
Specter voted against Bork. Why would Santorum trust him on judges?
Betty Dobson| 2.23.12 @ 3:04PM
Santorum took a huge risk by supporting a pro-choice Specter who later turned out to be a turncoat.
Ward Bond| 2.23.12 @ 3:39PM
One question: who would you trust most to nominate a conservative Supreme Court judge, a President Romney or a President Santorum?
Dave| 2.23.12 @ 4:16PM
I would trust both of them equally...they are both conservatives... but thats not what this article is about...it is baseless and a shameful smear...read that headline ? ...is that fair? thats the issue!
Bo Darville| 2.24.12 @ 1:41PM
If Specter would have lost to Toomey in 2004 and then Toomey lost. The GOP would still have had 54 seats in the Senate and control of the judiciary committee. I don't see how Specter's lack of presense would've made a hill of beans difference. This is bizarre logic, especially from the man who thought Christine O'Donnell losing was better than Mike Castle winning.