Replies

I voted for Bush over Kerry, not because I agreed with everything Bush did, but because Kerry would have been awful.

The Senate race is decidedly different. Santorum is but one of a hundred. We can afford to lose him, and he must be held to account for his betrayal of his professed principles. For more than a decade, he shamelessly promoted himself as staunchly pro-life, but when he had a chance to indirectly influence the composition of the SCOTUS, he allowed Arlen to ascend. That is unexcusable.

What, in your view, is the appropriate way to deal with behavior which is in direct contravention of his proferred principle? Vote for him anyway? Thank him for representing the views of his base only when convenient? Nah...I can't do it. I'm not going to grovel at his feet and rubber stamp my ballot.

He's one of a hundred, and contrary to popular belief, ousting him will not weaken the party...on the contrary, the others will take note, and be far less inclined to sell out principle, sell out their core constituents. It's the political equivalent of Tough Love....hurts for a while, but delivers long lasting results.

Qute: "He's one of a hundred, and contrary to popular belief, ousting him will not weaken the party...on the contrary, the others will take note, and be far less inclined to sell out principle, sell out their core constituents. It's the political equivalent of Tough Love....hurts for a while, but delivers long lasting results."

Oh, OK, so when the President fails to get Tax Reform through the congress by ONE vote, its only one in a hundred. When the fillibustering of judicial nominees can't be ended because of ONE vote, its only one in a hundred and on and on and on and on aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand ooooooooonnnnnn!!! Hey, its tough love, but then again, shooting ones' self in the foot usually is.

The Senate race is decidedly different. Santorum is but one of a hundred. We can afford to lose him, and he must be held to account for his betrayal of his professed principles. For more than a decade, he shamelessly promoted himself as staunchly pro-life, but when he had a chance to indirectly influence the composition of the SCOTUS, he allowed Arlen to ascend. That is unexcusable.

Here's the political calculation you don't seem to remember or understand. There was no guarantee that the GOP would pick up or retain its numbers in the Senate. So from President Bush on down it was thought best to support every GOP incumbent.

With Arlen voting with the GOP caucus, we have control of the apparatus. With a Senator Hoeffel and a few other losses, we have a tied or diminished Senate.

You all are operating under the assumption that Toomey would win in the general election. That's not a given in any way, especially with Rendell and the Philly machine.

You also operate under the assumption that it doesn't matter what party controls the Senate. You can disagree with 20/20 hindsight that Specter's seat was a "must hold" for the GOP, but in the political reality of the campaign season, to forfeit a seat you control is foolish.

Bush and Santorum calculated that the pro-life cause would be furthered with GOP control of the Senate, including a Specter who was in some way indebted to them, than they would be by impaling themselves in order to please the base.

You are short sighted.