"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go." -- Our Lady of Fatima

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

But Santorum Endorsed Specter!!!!!

Newsflash! Rick Santorum endorsed pro-choice Arlen Specter over pro-life Pat Toomey in the 2004 election cycle. In case you were living under a rock you may not have known this.

And despite all the years of pro-life service in the House and Senate, Rick Santorum is disqualified from ever being considered "pro-life" and is never ever no way not even a little bit to be considered fit for public office ever ever again. And any talk that Rick Santorum might make a better President than pro-abortion Barack Obama is hogwash. They're essentially the same. Santorum=Obama. Got it?

That seems to be a decent amount of the talk filling the comboxes around the blogosphere right now. And I don't agree with it at all. Many pro-lifers haven’t gotten over their disillusionment and disappointment of Santorum's 2004 endorsement. I too was terribly disappointed in Santorum at the time. I believed and still believe it was the wrong thing to do.

But last year in an interview with the Spectator, Santorum admitted the endorsement was a mistake.

“In retrospect, it was a mistake,” he said. “I’ve admitted that. But you’ve gotta understand what my thinking was at the time. We had a 51-49 majority in the Senate. George W. Bush was up for a tough re-election fight. My sole focus was, how do we secure our majority, related most importantly to how could we confirm up to three Bush nominees to the Supreme Court.
So let's just get this right. Santorum's decision to endorse Specter was one that would further the pro-life cause to get judges confirmed.

Remember, at the time of the endorsement Democrats were filibustering conservative federal judicial nominees and paying little or no political price. Republicans wanted to keep their slim majority and were afraid that Toomey, who didn’t have the name recognition he has now, wouldn’t win against a good campaigner in Democrat Congressman Joe Hoeffel.

If Toomey would’ve beaten Specter in the primary and lost in the general election we can't know what would've become of the nominations of judges John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Santorum has said that Specter promised him that he would support George W. Bush’s judicial nominations. And he did. That support helped get Samuel Alito and John Roberts onto the Court. So one could argue that Santorum’s seeming defection helped put pro-lifers on the court.

I agree with Santorum that it was a mistake. It can be argued, however, that he did the wrong thing for the right reasons. I consider it a failing but the good news is that so does he. Politicians, like all of us, make mistakes. We're electing human beings who make mistakes sometimes. But Rick Santorum made a mistake for the right reasons. His core principles are aimed at advancing the culture of life.

And let's face it, there's not an infinite pool of candidates. It's Santorum, Perry, Romney or Gingrich right now. Thank goodness those other guys haven't made any mistakes.

Hey, and if we don't like any of them, there's always Obama.

Your Ad Here

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Without Specter we might not have Alito on the Supreme court. So, Santorum made a political decision in supporting Specter. I just thought of something original: politics makes strange bedfellows

David L Alexander said...

This is the kind of thinking that works only when it works. When it doesn't, it really REALLY doesn't. Specter could have just as easily gone back on his word (which has since happened). So the lesson for the rest of us (the one Santorum has since learned) is this: There is never a right way to do the wrong thing, so do the right thing.

Paul Zummo said...

If Toomey would’ve beaten Specter in the primary and lost in the general election we can't know what would've become of the nominations of judges John Roberts or Samuel Alito.

They both would easily have been confirmed, as they were with Specter. I have always thought that too much was made of Santorum's endorsement and people have allowed this one act to overshadow the good that the man has accomplished and stood for. But let's not re-write history. Roberts was confirmed with something like 70 votes, and Alito had 58. Neither man needed Specter to pass the Senate. And keep in mind that Specter was one of the prime reasons that Bork was kept off the Court, and therefore is partially responsible for Roe being upheld with the Casey decision. The one important deciding vote that Specter cast in his last term was for Obamacare. Finally, Toomey is now a US Senator, meaning that he couldn't have been all that unelectable in a general election.

Jay Anderson said...

It's not a disqualifier, per se. But endorsing a pro-abort liberal over a pro-life conservative followed by that pro-abort liberal switching parties and becoming a deciding vote in favor of Obamacare is a heckuva bigger problem than some of the things that have been used to justify disqualifying other candidates (see, e.g., Gardasil, immigration, sitting on a couch next to Pelosi, etc.).

And, as usual, the man in the black hat is spot on in his observation about doing the right thing.

Anonymous said...

And without Spector Obamacare doesn't pass.

Stu said...

Santorum will never get the support of the Catholic Purity Party.

Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

Santorum endorsing a pro-abort is unexcusable. He knew that abortion is the murder of an unborn child, yet he endorsed the candidacy of a rabid pro-abort. he later 'admitted' that it was a 'mistake'. Yeah, just in time to run for the nomination!

Jay Anderson said...

If you and your supporters are going to try to pass yourself off as the "pure Catholic" candidate, you better meet the criteria. Selling out a pro-life Catholic candidate in favor of the Party Establishment pro-abort who later switched parties and provided the winning vote for Obamacare sorta opens one up to some legitimate criticism in that regard.

That said, I hope Santorum can pull it off and keep Romney from winning the GOP nomination.

Matthew A. Siekierski said...

If you really think the Senate Democrats needed the 60 votes to prevent a filibuster of Obamacare, you haven't been paying attention to the wimpy Republican Senators who avoid full confrontation at all costs.

Jay Anderson said...

"... wimpy Republican Senators who avoid full confrontation at all costs."

I don't disagree, Matt. In fact, this was the same mentality that allowed Santorum, as a member of the Senate leadership, to go along and get along by putting party over principle and endorsing Specter over Toomey. It was easier to stick with the "electable" pro-abort incumbent than to buck the party establishment to work hard and fight for a pro-life challenger.

Matthew A. Siekierski said...

I think you're possibly doing Santorum an injustice. You assume he rode along with the party establishment in supporting Specter. I see a different possibility, one that seems to me to be more charitable and more along the lines of what I've seen in Santorum.

I think he looked at the field, looked at the possible outcomes, and made a tactical decision.
A: Support Toomey, even though I think he'll lose to a pro-abortion Democrat, and watch the Senate flip to Democrat.
B: Support Specter, even though he's pro-abortion and a snake, because he has a realistic chance of winning and keeping the Senate under Republican control.

Or, rephrased, he saw the following two possibilities:
A: A Pro-abort Democrat (alert the Department of Redundancy Department!) wins the office.
B: A Pro-abort RINO wins the office.

Yes, it ultimately backfired, but I understand the logic. If you think that the seat will be pro-death no matter what, mitigate the results by trying to keep the pro-death camp from running the whole show.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I hope the above was more of the cause of Santorum's decision in 2004 than simply being a good stooge for the party establishment.

Donald R. McClarey said...

As the tight Presidential polls that year indicated, there was every prospect that 2004 was going to be a bad year for the Republicans. The Democrats had slightly more seats up than the Republicans, 19-15 in the Senate that year, but the playing ground was fairly even. On election night Kentucky, Florida and Alaska were fairly close, and South Dakota was won by a hair. Control of the Senate would have shifted if those elections had gone the other way, and they might well have.

I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe. Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry, and I think it likely that Toomey might well have been defeated that year, considering that he only got 51% of the vote in 2010, the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was in office.

Katie said...

THANK YOU. And I think Mr. Sierierski is spot on.

Jay Anderson said...

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. My view is that you do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.

The sort of reasoning that says support Specter over Toomey is the same sort of reasoning that says don't pass pro-life legislation because the Supreme Court might strike it down and further entrench Roe. I'm done with that sort of political posturing that seems to always redound to the benefit of the GOP as a party, but rarely if ever actually advances the pro-life cause.

Anonymous said...

Such contortions to justify fake conservative, RINO two faced sneak Santorum. Ugh.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this post. It did take me ages and the guidance of my husband to get over this. Just one urging to look at the alternatives and it isn't too hard. A friend and I were discussing how much fun a "Forgive Rick" movement can be.

Love your blog.

Joanne said...

Wow, the comments certainly seem to reinforce what the article states. As a constituent of the former Senator and as a constituent when he was a representative, I have followed his career for decades. God forbid that any of us make a bad decision, lest no one will ever forgive us. Too bad that Santorum needs to be perfect. I was disappointed when Santorum supported Spector but understood it as he was caught between the provervial 'rock and a hard place.'

I heard Santorum say, several years ago, that in retrospect that he regrets supporting Spector, but he truly felt that his support would help keep the Rebublican majority as Toomey was extremely unpopular in PA with non Republicans. Yes, I know that Toomey was eventually elected, BUT he was elected on a wave of disgust for Democrats and was running against the turncoat Spector. Unless you were living in PA and following politics, you wouldn't have understood the dynamics of the situation.

RecoveringFeminist said...

It may be that Santorum may be the last man standing, so to speak, and those who believe that you can vote for the lesser of two evils will vote for Santorum. But the question remains: Why do we keep getting evil by voting for the lesser of two evils? Would any pro-abortion Democrat vote for a candidate who had some pro-life exceptions? Why is it that Republicans are willing to be lukewarm on character and Democrats won't? I have not been able to find any evidence that Santorum has made a public apology for his public support of pro-death Specter. If it's out there, I would appreciate being corrected. I have read that Santorum has stated that his wife advised strongly against support of Specter. Since this was a public support of pro-death Specter, Santorum should issue a public apology of that support, eliminating any doubt about his past mistake. Specter has said he never made any deals with Santorum. Imagine that--a pro-abortion politician who doesn't make pro-life deals? http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/santorum-apologizes-for-04-specter-endorsement/

Santorum is quoted here:

"...You cannot be both personally against abortion while condoning it – you can’t have it both ways. We must defend the defenseless, period..." http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/20/cain-government-shouldnt-make-decision-on-abortion-rape/"

If he truly believed that we cannot be both personally against abortion while condoning it--you can't have it both ways and defend the defenseless, period, why did he support pro-abortion Arlen Specter? Wasn't he condoning abortion while supporting it through Arlen Specter? Did Santorum defend the defenseless by supporting Arlen Specter? Santorum has a character issue that needs to be clarified by a public apology, without nuance.

Douay-Rheims, The Apocalypse Of Saint John (Revelation) 3:16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

Maggie said...

"And let's face it, there's not an infinite pool of candidates. It's Santorum, Perry, Romney or Gingrich right now."
AND RON PAUL. Your blatant choice to ignore the facts of the race is really getting to be pathetic. Ron Paul is polling consistently higher than Perry and Gingrich time and time again and came in far far ahead of them in the caucus last night. With all due respect, please get your head in the game.

Anonymous said...

Maggie, you are a wise woman.

Post a Comment