Specter, Santorum, and Toomey

One objection to Santorum is that he backed RINO Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey. I’ll just make a few quick observations:

i) To some extent a Republican politician has to cooperate with the Republican establishment to get anything done. He can’t get legislation passed unilaterally. In the nature of the case, Congressional legislation is a collaborative endeavor.

You have to play ball with the leadership. If you want to get something, you have to give something.

This doesn’t mean you have to march in lockstep with the establishment on every single issue. But you do have to pick your fights.

ii) The alternative is to be a lone ranger like Ron Paul. As a result, Ron Paul has no signature legislation, even though he’s been in Congress on-and-off since the mid-70s.

Frankly, it’s pointless to serve in Congress if you don’t intend to get anything done.

iii) There’s a difference between moral compromise and procedural compromise. Santorum backing the establishment candidate isn’t a moral compromise, but a process issue. A pragmatic calculation. That’s not a point of principle, not an end in itself, but a means to an end. How to work the political machinery.

iv) What matters is Congress is not so much the individual, but the balance of power. Which party has a working majority.

Likewise, Congressmen with more seniority have more power.

v) Toomey is more conservative than Specter. But when Toomey was on the ill-fated super committee, he supported a $250 billion tax hike. So he's not an ideological purist. He, too, is prepared to make concessions on key issues.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/toomey-super-committee-democrats-rejected-compromise-demanded-1-trillion-tax-hike_610027.html