2004 Video: Is this Santorum's Biggest Wart?

In 2004, current Senator Pat Toomey was the conservative candidate running against incumbent RINO and eventual Democrat, Arlen Specter. Sitting Pennsylvania Senator at the time, Rick Santorum, fell in line behind the Republican establishment and publicly endorsed Specter.

As bad as this is, it doesn't come close to the number of warts on Romney, Gingrich, Paul or Perry.

Nonetheless, it is what it is and Santorum should have to address it.

Via Ace of Spades:

VIDEO: ARLEN SPECTER'S BITTER FAREWELL SPEECH

Arlen Specter proved one thing with his bitter farewell speech - he was a fraudulent Republican, which is actually worse than a far left Democrat. At least the latter extends the courtesy of not wearing a mask. Specter actually adopted the most absurd of leftwing traits in this speech (projection) as he bemoaned a disregard for the separation of powers in our three branches of government. Ironically, he wasn't talking about the Executive branch. He was talking about the Judicial Branch. In particular, the 5-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC. Apparently lost on Specter was the FCC's decision to thumb its nose at both congress and recent court rulings on the same day he gave this speech; the FCC is an arm of the Obama administration.

It's also humorous how he makes the charge that the Republican party is being overrun by extremists and is falling prey to 'sophisticated cannibalism.' Again, it's the far left that has eaten the Democrat party. Then he points to Lisa Murkowski's successful write-in bid as a way to defeat 'right wing extremists' in the future.

His most truthful statement was only half of one sentence: "My dominant feeling is pride......" at the 6:00 mark.

Can someone tell me what John Kerry (seated behind Specter) is doing at the 1:45 mark?

Via Breitbart:

VIDEO: HOLDER, HOLDER, HOLDER

Talk about a public bludgeoning. Attorney General Eric Holder hit the trifecta at a Justice Department Oversight Committee hearing. When asked about the potential for radical islam being the possible motivation for Faisal Shahzad's Times Square bombing attempt, Holder got a case of the ummm's and ahhh's that would make Robert Gibbs jealous.

When asked if he read Arizona's SB 1070, the new law in that state which enforces the federal laws regarding illegal immigration, Holder said he hadn't read it; Holder is on record as being critical of that law. Being critical of a law one hasn't read is ok if you're calling into a radio talk show but inexcusable if you're the U.S. Attorney General.

But first, the third and lengthiest exchange, which was over the claim of Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) that the White House offered him a job - allegedly Secretary of the Navy - if he dropped out of the race with incumbent Arlen Specter for Pennsylvania Senator. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has been persistent in trying to get answers from the Justice Department on what it will do to investigate the matter. In this exchange, Issa is in full attack mode for five minutes and Holder comes across as his usual bumbling self, having to defend the indefensible. It also didn't help that Issa's letters to Holder have gone unanswered - he makes sure this is known as well.



Holder literally cannot say or comprehend the concept of "radical islam".



Holder saying he hasn't read Arizona's new law.

JOE SESTAK VS. RICK SANTORUM?

This one could get interesting. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) took conservative heat in 2004 when he endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the primary. Now he seems to be taking heat from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who is actually running against Specter in this year's Democratic primary. Sestak appears eager to find in others that which has been dogging him - a scandal involving trades for political favor.

This tack Sestak is taking really couldn't be more transparent and odds are the White House isn't the least bit happy about his latest comments. They could - and should - spur the White House press corps. to question Robert Gibbs about the whole "Jobsgate" scandal.

Sestak has found himself mired in a percolating scandal after admitting to a talk show host in February that the Obama administration offered him a job if he dropped out of the primary against Specter. Whether demonstrating hyper-sensitivity or having a valid point, Sestak has apparently decided to go after Santorum for comments he made in reference to the latter's endorsement of Specter in 2004.

POLITICO quotes Santorum, who responded to a question about why he supported Specter over Toomey in 2004:

"The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up," said Santorum, responding to a question at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. "I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee," he added.

This has the ring of misery wanting company. If this is a battle Sestak is going to pick, he's going to lose. Offering one's endorsement to the head of the Senate Judiciary committee in return for fast tracking the president's judicial nominees doesn't quite rise to the level of being offered a cushy job by the White House in return for dropping out of a Senate primary race.

After all, the senate's job is to offer advice and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. Specter understandably denied Santorum's claim but Sestak, in making this an issue, comes across as being overly concerned about being alienated by attempting to get others to join him in the frying pan. He's comparing what the White House offered him with what Santorum alleges was agreed on between he and Specter. It doesn't measure up and this speaks to how much this scandal is inside Sestak's head.

Santorum was wrong in endorsing Specter in 2004. He obviously did so because Specter would yield more power than would a freshman Senator in Toomey. Now Specter is no longer a RINO - he's a Democrat.

This may be a sign that Sestak is really getting uncomfortable with Jobsgate. Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator has been following this story quite closely and his most recent article goes right for the jugular - Sestak's honor relative to the oath he took as a Midshipman. Could it be that Sestak's conscience is beginning to hound him a bit more loudly lately?

More on Lord's work here.

THE SESTAK STONEWALL CONTINUES

When Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) honestly answered a question about whether the White House offered him a job if he'd drop out of his primary race with Arlen Specter for the latter's Senate seat, the one word response - yes - raised eyebrows. Here we are several weeks after Sestak told a talk show host that the White House explicitly asked him to drop out of the race and the controversy continues to simmer.

If you'd like to be brought up to speed from the beginning, click here, here, and here.

There is nothing earth shaking about the latest developments but the low rumble underneath the service continues. Whether it's the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stonewalling repeated questions about the controversy or a similar story in Colorado involving Senator Michael Bennet's (D) opponent, Andrew Romanoff, the longer this scandal percolates, the more likely it will one day boil over.

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform panel, has been sending letters to the White House demanding answers. They continue to garner no response.

Via the Morning Call:

Issa, a Southern California pol who on numerous occasions has accused the administration of ''Chicago-like politics,'' has demanded the White House come clean about the alleged job offer.

He is the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform panel. He has sent the White House two letters, on March 10 and March 22, asking specific questions about Sestak's claim.

Issa has not received a response, according to his spokesman, Kurt Bardella.

In the second letter, Issa gave the White House until April 5 to respond.

Bardella said Issa would extend the deadline, giving the Obama administration until after the Easter holiday to answer before contacting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and asking that a special prosecutor investigate whether a crime had been committed.

''Either Joe Sestak is lying or the White House is lying,'' Bardella said. ''There is no gray area here.''

The article goes on to explain that the quid pro quo must be clearly established for this scandal to become full blown. Even then, Attorney General Eric Holder would actually have to initiate an investigation and the odds of that happening are about as good as Holder voluntarily divulging why the Justice Department dropped its slam dunk case against the Black Panthers, who were caught on tape wielding a night stick outside of a polling station on election day, 2008.

Nonetheless, if this scandal is able to - over time - generate the type of public engagement seen in the Tea Party movement, the levee very well could break at some point.

h/t to Michelle Malkin

VIDEO: ARLEN SPECTER ON WRONG END OF VERBAL BEATING

Hillary got angry at the prospect of "channeling" her husband. Arlen Specter was on the receiving end of a man who was channeling a lot of Angry Americans while serving as a quite capable medium through which the message was sufficiently delivered.

Money quote:

"One day God is going to stand before you and he's going to judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill and then you will get your just deserts."

This is just one excerpt from Specter's town hall. If you saw the entire thing, he was confronted by extremely informed and articulate voters who left Arlen looking like a deer in the headlights on multiple occasions.

REAL CLEAR POLITICS has the video.

With how solidly Specter was defeated in this meeting, he's still higher on the totum poll than are the politicians who are choosing not to have a town hall or do so via phone.