-
Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.
May 25, 2013 | 1 comment
-
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
May 24, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 6 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
With regard to Mitt Romney hammering Rick Santorum over his support for Arlen Specter’s re-election in 2004, Jeff Lord is probably right when he says that had Romney defeated Ted Kennedy in 1994 that he would have likely not a cast a ballot for John Roberts and Sam Alito (or for that matter Bill Pryor on the 11th Circuit).
But the Montreal Expos should have won the 1994 World Series. If the Expos had got their victory parade down Rue St. Catherine then there would still be baseball in Montreal. But there was no World Series in 1994. Nor did Mitt Romney beat Ted Kennedy that year. So I’m afraid Jeff’s point is moot.
While Santorum may have said last night that he “did the right thing for our country” when he backed Specter he wasn’t so proud of supporting Specter two years ago. When he spoke before CPAC in 2010, Santorum said, “Against the advice of my wife, I endorsed Arlen Specter.” After a chorus of booes cascaded across the auditorium, Santorum said, “My sentiments exactly! How many times have I said this in my 20-plus years of marriage? I should have listened to my wife.” So is Santorum now back to not listening to his wife?
Jeff further argues:
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.
Well, underappreciated is the operative word here and unfortunately for Santorum it is largely conservatives who don’t appreciate his efforts in getting Specter re-elected in 2004. If Santorum deserves some of the credit for getting Specter re-elected in order to see through the confirmations of Roberts, Alito and other conservative justices then he must also take some of the blame for getting Specter re-elected because he did switch parties and saw through the passage of Obamacare. If Santorum is now back to defending his efforts on behalf of Specter then he must take the good with the bad.
Given Romney’s own role in bringing about Obamacare, he was downright audacious in his attack on Santorum. Nevertheless, Santorum did not do a good job of explaining his support for Specter in a succinct manner and was unable to put the ball back into Romney’s court. Romney successfully placed the Specter albatross around Santorum’s neck and unless he finds a way to remove it or somehow Romney makes a bigger blunder of his own then the damage done may very well be irreversible.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/23/the-specter-albatross
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 1:29PM
Santorum endorsed Arlene Specter over pat Toomey, and that Specter was the 60th "deciding" vote in the senate implementing Obamacare. Santorum helped Specter and Specter helped Obama pass Obamacare. Santorum's hands are bloody, whether he denies the fact that had he helped Toomey instead of specter, Obamacare would have had never passed in the senate, Obamacare would have been killed in the senate.
Doug| 2.23.12 @ 2:12PM
I thought Scott Brown was the 60th vote. Or was it one of the Maine RINOs? But by the time ObamaCare was being voted on Specter had switched parties and was already counted among the 59-60 Democrats.
Brooklyn| 2.23.12 @ 4:37PM
Before Scott Brown, with a 41st vote, Obamacare could have been successfully fillibustered, or cut down earlier in the process.
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 2:13PM
Mitt Romney was the architect of Obamacare.
Your point?
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 2:19PM
Santorum was the "insider" who has been aiding those RINOs like Arlene Specter for years, and that is why Santorum lost his senate bid by 18 points in 2006. Romney made a "fatal" mistake implementing Romneycar, and neither of them gets my vote. I'm for Gingrich, "old man in the sea." He got no money, but he has authentic.
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 3:14PM
Well, except that Newt pulled something even worse with his endorsement of the very liberal Scozzafava in NY-23 and badmouthed conservatives in the process. Santorum didn't endorse the global warming hoax by sitting on that park bench with Crazy Eyes Pelosi either. And of course Gingrich supported the most objectionable part of Obamneycare---the individual mandate---for some two decades, thus squandering the advantage he should have held for killing Hillarycare.
All of which is why I vowed quite some time ago I wouldn't pull the lever for Gingrich if he ran for president.
Santorum's not perfect but his errors stemmed from supporting a GOP President who was under constant attack and can be forgiven on that basis. First thing he needs to do to lance that boil is admit that supporting Specter was an error.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 4:13PM
Guess Who?
Voted for
1. Raising debt ceiling 5 times
2.Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Sonia Sotomayer
Voted against
1. Right-to-Work law
Ans: "Keystone RINO" Rick Santorum
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 5:22PM
Except that Gingrich 1. advocated for increasing the debt ceiling (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161283-gingrich-increase-debt-ceiling-in-small-amounts), 2. lobbied for Freddie Mac, 3. lobbied for Medicare Part D and still considers it a great accomplishment, 4. Endorsed Dede Scozzafava over a conservative whose Democrat opponent Scozzafava ENDORSED after she withdrew from the race, 5. Resigned from Congress after losing the support of his own caucus for Speaker, 6. Backs federal education funding, 7. Supports expansion of foreign aid, 8. Admitted to "melting" in Bill Clinton's presence, 9. Praised Clinton's Haiti intervention which put a Communist murderer back in charge of the country, 10. Recently toured America with Al Sharpton in support of Obama's educational "reforms".
But Gingrich's apostasies are legion, especially post-Speakership.
Are you honestly unaware of them?
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 10:37PM
Gingrich engineered the 1994 GOP revolution, which inspired the 2010 Tea Party tsunami.
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 2:12PM
Pray tell, who did Romney put up for the judiciary in Massachusetts?
Oh, that's right---liberals.
Got anything else, Goldstein?
Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 2:46PM
tef,
See that does not count. Nor does Romney's work with Ted Kennedy on a host of legislation.
The idea is in this culture now that it is Ok to lie, distort, exaggerate, and misinform about someone. The burden of proof of innocence is on the accused. The lies stand and will not be dismissed unless the attacked somehow magically, skillfully, and effectively counter the lie and prove their innocence. Of course, the standard of what constitutes an effective response to the lie is a moving measure and in the eye of the beholders agenda.
So, what we are left with is a pile of misinformation and the strongest repeated lies that pretend to be truth. The best liar wins!
So far, progressives excell in this area. That is why they rule.
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 2:57PM
In other words, Simon, it is the "seriousness of the charge" which must be considered and not whether or not it is true, right?
It's been awhile since Bush so I haven't had to exercise those particular muscles in some time...
Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 3:23PM
Yes, partially. See honesty and admittance to a mistake is really not that much of value either. It is much more valued to counter with an evasion or perhaps with another lie or distortion.
The "seriousness of the charge" is carefully constructed by the accuser with great emotion and false piety. This is what counts the most.
The best place to be is saying the lie about yourself or your opponent and having it go unaddressed by the media, the opponent, or your supporters. This works the best as it goes under the radar and is generally accepted as truth because it was said and unnoticed or unchallenged.
This is why negative ads work so well particularly when they are filled with lies. Just the act of making the accusation is enough for it to influence. Discernment and questioning what you hear is not a prized attribute for most people in this current society.
Truth is relative and there is a belief that one can not determine it.
That is why it is so rare to read an article that contains the whole story, all the facts, pro and con, and framed in a proper and reasonable context.
So, have you noticed when you make a point or argument or observation of a candidate, the typical response is to ignore what you are trying to communicate no matter how brilliant it was and accuse you of being a supporter of one candidate or another.
The response contains an underlying assumption that you are biased for someone, probably lying and misrepresenting so as to win the argument or point because that is understood now to be what every one does and its OK.
This is why this society is falling apart. The days of reasoned argument, intellectual honesty, and the respect fot the truth are over. The Buckley age of respecting each other, searching for facts, and putting a premium on intellectual honesty and logic are finished.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.23.12 @ 3:16PM
If Santorum had challenged Romney on his judicial appointments in Massachusetts after Romney brought up Specter the story might very well be different. But he didn't.
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 3:49PM
So it's too much to expect you to note it, then? Looks like Simon's on to something above....
Aaron Goldstein| 2.23.12 @ 4:21PM
No, not really. Please see my response to him below.
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 5:30PM
You haven't really addressed his point. Why is Santorum's response noteworthy while Romney's utter hypocrisy in making the charge in the first place not? If Gingrich accused Romney of being an adulterer, would you really not point out the obvious fact that the pot was calling the kettle black?
Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 4:44PM
The story? What is the story? I see, narratives are created and we must just accept them with all their lies, distortions,and falsehoods. It is more important that Romney bested Santorum because that is the story.
The rest of it is really irrevelant? So, the other realities, the validity of the charges, the actual complete story, and all the facts about these candidates do not seem to matter. So, once again, it comes down to who can lie the best and if something is repeated enough it becomes the truth, the story, and the narrative.
Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 2:32PM
Here is a some food for thought. Why do we treat the electorate like they are complete idiots or simple minded children?
Aaron, no disrespect, by why is this always framed in a way where the candidate that attacks others with lies and distortions gets a pass and this lie is expected to stand unless the attacked candidate can adequately defend himself in 6o seconds or less and counter the distortion.
Can you and the vast electorate see a lie or a distortion and just not accept it?
Why do we encourage group think? I thought conservatives were individuals who can think for themselves.
Why can conservative journalist remain as objective as they can and just do some homework and inform the electorate of the whole story, then let people decide for themselves?
Please explain to me why Santorum should be blamed for Spectre switching parties? Is he suppose to have a crystal ball? This is illogical.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.23.12 @ 3:25PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at with regard to your statement about treating the electorate like idiots or simple-minded children. I am merely offering my observations on the matter. The electorate is free to accept, reject or ignore these observations as they see fit.
Fair or not, debates are about being able to think on the spot. When Romney brought up Specter, Santorum could not respond in a cogent manner. This simply did not help his cause nor did his overall performance.
Nevertheless, it is entirely possible the voters of Michigan and Arizona may choose to ignore or reject my observations (and those of others) about Santorum's performance. We have five days before the vote and if a week is a lifetime then five days can bring one into old age in politics.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.23.12 @ 3:29PM
One more thought. While Santorum might not have been able to foresee Specter switching parties but it is the law of unintended consequences. Besides Specter had been a thorn in the side of conservatives for years. How many conservatives (aside from Quin Hillyer and Jeff Lord) celebrate Specter's role in getting Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court?
Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 4:08PM
What you are implicitly doing is putting the burden of innocence on Santorum and not focusing on the validity of the accuser's charges, that being Romney. You are also accepting the implied and subjective conclusions of Romney on Santorum's decision to support Spectre and his interpretation as the truth and nothing but the truth. You are also accepting the premise that deabates and thinking on the spot are the make or break factors in determining the validity of someone being a good president or being electable. There is also plenty of research that concludes that these debates have little impact on the electorate in the long run.
Well, if that were the only criteria, Gingrich will be our next president. Relax, idiots, that was not an endorsement.
You are also accepting the notion that people should be responsible for all unseen unintended consequence that are out of their control, sight, and power to stop. This is not only unrealistic but illogical. Gee, should we smear G. Washington for appointing Bendict Arnold as a General? Should Reagan be completely dismissed because he "unwittingly' passed amnesty for illegals in an attempt to get a comprehensive policy and cooperation from dems which they later reneged on.
Yes, many conservatives fall on their knees every day thanking their creator for Alito and Roberts.
Fair or not fair? Fair is what we determine to be fair and what we accept as fair. It is not a given. Who exactly decides what is fair or not and forces the rest of us to abide by it? It is not fair that the GOP establishment has the power and money to force a candidate down the throats of the base, but do we have to accept that? It is not fair that the liberals control the media and our debates, but do we have to just accept that? Is it fair that conservatives can be so easily portrayed as hating women and granny? Do we have to accept that as well?
Yes, sure, give your observations. There is a fine line, however, between honest, accurate observations and attempting to influence people with observations that perhaps are not accurate and contributing to more misunderstanding and perhaps the wrong conclusions. We all have to be careful not to do this.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.23.12 @ 4:34PM
To suggest that I accept the word of Mitt Romney at face value is simply hogwash. If you re-read the concluding paragraph of my post I state that Romney was "audacious" in claiming Santorum was responsible for Obamacare given Romney's own role in bringing it about.
Nevertheless, when Santorum was confronted with his support of Specter he simply did not respond well. In fact, if you read the debate transcripts Romney had to press him on Specter before he addressed it. When you consider that had previously had publicly repudiated his support for Specter one does have to question Santorum's sincerity on the subject.
The notion that I am attempting to persuade people to support Romney is ludicrous. I have written no fewer than four "severely" critical articles this year not to mention numerous blog posts about Romney. My disinclination towards him notwithstanding, his exchange with Santorum over Specter was quite notable. While I think it will benefit Romney next week whether it actually does very much remains to be seen.
Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 5:20PM
You did exactly what I said people seem to do when confronted these days when someone disagrees with them...earlier in this thread. You assummed that I was accussing you of being a Romney advocate and you were carrying water for him. That is not what I said. I do not presume to know who you will vote for in November nor do I care.
I do not think nor did I say that you are attempting to pursuade people to vote for Romney. I thought I made my points quite clearly. I object to the underlying assumptions that you make in your observations. I object to the way you have come to some of your conclusions.
You do not seem to understand that you are part of the story as well. There was a lot more going on in that exchange that you have presented between Santorum and Romney. The story is much more than the fact that Romney seemed to have bested Santorum and Santorums response which appeared differently to different people.
Your observation was one observation that contained, as I saw it, some faulty conclusions and underlying assumptions in how to analyze that event between the two of them. You did not think it relevant to point out Romneys judicial appointments or the actual validity of his accusations or anything else about that exchange that would give the reader or electorate a better understanding of the actual whole truth of both men and the attempts to distort.
Why is it an implictly accepted fact to you that this is an albatross around the man's neck and it should be there? Why is the focus primarily on the accusation and not on whether this accusation is valid and assumes the implications that Romney's story holds more weight just because Santorum was not as effective in explaining himself. Why is it a problem if he does indeed try to explain himself and risk being seen as being on the defense and thus less credible?
Gee, it seems today that you are suppose to defend yourself but not defend yourself..damned if you do and damned if you do not give some defense.
Moreover, why does every single mistake or faultering in a debate have to be presented like it is the end of the world, the candidate, and conservativism? Moreover, why does this "rule" seem to be applied to some more than others?
No one seems to be calling for Ron Pauls dismissal from this race and predicting his demise given his insane comments last night that border on treason.
teflon93| 2.23.12 @ 5:28PM
What he seems to be missing, Simon, is the notion that somehow the burden of proof is on the accused, even when the accuser prima facie hasn't a leg to stand on.
Mitt Romney, who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy and who implemented socialized medicine, gay marriage, and taxpayer-funded abortion for his own political ends while governor, and who hotly denied wanting a return to the Reagan years, is hardly the man to accuse any Republican of not being sufficiently conservative to buck the party. After all, Romney spent most of his misbegotten political career bucking the GOP by governing as a liberal.
It would be like Chris Matthews accusing me of being a drunk. Goldstein would sit there and criticize my stunned response while not telling anybody about Matthews' whiskey breath.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.23.12 @ 11:38PM
So what you are telling me is that Romney is vulnerable in criticizing Santorum over Specter given his judicial appointments as Governor of Massachusetts. If that's the case then why didn't Santorum bring it up?
Brooklyn| 2.23.12 @ 3:45PM
When PA did not return Santorum back to the Senate, Bob Casey was the 60th vote for Obamacare. A far more predictable result than what Spector was going to do. If conservatives did not come out in force for Santorum in 2006, they cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Les Panek| 2.23.12 @ 4:07PM
Specter was getting elected over and over in the Senate since '80. Does anyone really think that he needed Santorum's support to get there again? I don't like what Rick did then, and it's taken time to forgive, but would Toomey have had a chance in Blue Pennsylvania back in '04, when the state was voting against Bush? I'm thrilled Toomey is in there now, but it took a Conservative wave election to squeek him by.
We'll know how culpable Rick is if the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional...
Brooklyn| 2.23.12 @ 4:31PM
I would think that Spector would think it a setback to have the junior senator come out against him. And what is more, he would have considered it a betrayal. If as you say, Spector would have won anyway, then Santorum would have been destroyed.
Clint| 2.23.12 @ 6:03PM
Yeah, We Pennsylvanians Know He Did, Sport.
Do Your Homework.
Toomey Lost The Election By A 1.7% Margin.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
WL| 2.23.12 @ 10:10PM
Folks, I see both sides of this issue...but for what it is worth, we need to step back and give real credence to one fact: Times were just a little bit different then. I know that these guys should have seen things differently than they did, including Santorum. But lets face it, alot of us have also fallen for the "bad Republican" is better than the best of Democrats idea before as well. Our non-players (some of you and myself)...did not really understand the damage bad Republicans were causing until the left started going further with their diabolical schemes...and ultimately seized the opportunity to serve up an Obama to the country successfully. I was just a kid at the time, but remember watching both Specter and Hatch countering that old jerk Howard Metzenbaum in the Clarence Thomas hearings. It was hard to hate them for that. Specter really got on the radar (majorly, at least) as a total turncoat when he voted for the Stimulus...then when he saw Toomey at his back..he swithed to the Democrats..and sealed the deal...Hind Sight is perfect...but holding Santorum to a standard of "perfect foresight required," is a little extreme in my opinion.
Despite Specter however...I am afraid that we are not seeing a problem even more sinister that the one he represents. It's a problem we all should know well by now...It's this: If it wasn't Specter that switched...it would have been Some Republican somewhere...And that/those Republicans are still there without us knowing who they are. The Republican party is full of them.
WL| 2.23.12 @ 10:18PM
And we should also not forget, Pennsylvania is full of a bunch of Democrat leaning folks who LOVE to vote for Democrats if they can give themselves the smallest of excuses.
I am glad Toomey won this last election, but it was also in a Tsunami of Republican victories. It would have been hard to see that being the case 6 years prior. I do NOT fall into the camp that points to Angle and Odonell as examples of how conservatives can't get elected...that is a fraudulant and deceitful analysis from the Establishment...However, some states do not want Conservatives...they just DON'T...You and I sit back and laugh at those States because they implode in on themselves regularly and love their miserable existance beyond all rational thought...BUT it is the case. Nobody could have been certain that Toomey would have won...and we really can't even be certain today...He did win...but that was years later, right in the middle of a strong reaction to Obama...in an off year election...and we know Democrats don't show up in those because they are too stupid to know that anything other than the Presidency matters.
FeFe| 2.25.12 @ 1:50AM
First of all, I think you missed "Jeff's point." Then, you miss-characterize a playful exchange involving his wife. Have you not listened to Mr. Santorum speak of this before? There are dozens of townhall internet videos with this topic included and the advise Karen gave. And let's be honest, Obamacare was not a simple vote, in both chambers, along the course of ordinary business. To place so much credit of passage on the one vote of a sunning moderate, forever drifting on the tide in Specter is to give him more stature than deserved.
"Surely the manner in which Obamacare was imposed on the public was not evidence of good intentions." -Mark Levin
Amazing how the American people can listen and understand Rick's process and be satisfied but politicos are not. $16 trillion in debt but this and earmarks the Bionic Romney Machine wants to get media ink. Okay. You say an "albatross around Santorum's neck"? Well, for all those with Specter still stuck in their throat 8 years later, riddle me this: What has Mitt Romney ever done to advance the conservative cause? Coultercare and 2002 Olympics CPR earmarks don't count.
Or, to stick with your credit and blame theme: In light of Mr. Romney's spirited assertion, "I was a severely conservative Republican governor," did severely liberal Massachusetts change course once Romney quit his reelection campaign and rode off into the sunset of his perpetual presidential campaign? If not, what were these decentralized power and free market changes in state governance he successfully articulated to enact for lasting constitutional, pro private sector growth change?
I have read the exchanges on this Santorum topic up thread as well, and am at a loss to understand the absence of joy in forward thinking. I see the long view, and can only be pleased in the courage, no matter how small or large, to ensure America's cultural inheritance. Sometimes, reading this blog is like wading through sour milk.
P.S. On a personal note, you must be a riot at a baseball game, Aaron.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.25.12 @ 6:18PM
You ought not construe my critique of Santorum as an endorsement of Romney. I have written several articles this year that have been critical of Romney. However, in this instance, when Romney challenged Santorum over Specter he couldn't respond effectively.
Now it's quite possible that won't matter to the voters in Michigan and Arizona on Tuesday and Santorum might prevail. Yet Romney's numbers have risen in Michigan and Arizona since the debate. On the other hand, Romney telling people how many cars he and his wife own isn't exactly politically astute.
Who knows what else could happen in the next 72 hours?
It would be your pleasure to have me accompany you to a baseball game.