Replies

Gingrich had no trouble endorsing Dede Scozzafosa, who was a pro-abortion advocate. And that wasn’t in 1996, it was in 2009, against a solid conservative, not against Bob Dole.

Of course, more than a few pro-lifers here at Free Republic had no trouble enthusiastically supportting Scott Brown for Senator either, even though he was pro-abortion.

And of course, Specter had no chance of winning the nomination in 1996. And Bob Dole, who was nominally pro-life, fought to water down the abortion platform plank, saying we should embrace pro-abortion republicans. And before the primary season started, he stopped supporting an abortion ban: “Senator Bob Dole’s statement on Sunday that he would no longer support an unconditional ban on abortion prompted a wave of anger today from the Republican right and escalated an already fierce ideological war in the party.”

Santorum was wrong to endorse Specter, both in 1995 for a hopeless presidential run, and in 2004, although that’s easier seen in retrospect. But applying a 2011 sensibility to decisions made in 1996 seems pointless — I mean, what is the actual argument here?

It can’t be that Santorum secretly is pro-abortion — he is the strongest pro-life candidate we have. It can’t be that we are worried he’ll appoint pro-abortion judges, or have pro-abortion positions, that would be absurd.

It can’t even be that, as President, he’ll somehow use his position to endorse people we wouldn’t support, because the reason for his endorsement of Specter in both cases is clearly a unique situation, where he was politically beholden, and returned a political favor, which in 1995 was meaningless as Specter was never going to win the presidency.

Senator DeMint actually endorsed Romney in 2008, so it is clear that good men make bad decisions (Gingrich-Scozzafoza, Palin-McCain, O’Donnell/Ayotte/Haley-Romney, and Perry-Giuliani are more examples).

So I think many of us have problems with this line of attack not for the actual charge (as I said, I think he made a mistake in both cases), but because of the unspoken false implications of the charge.

I mean, what is the actual argument here The actual argument here, as I see it, is that Rick Santorum presents himself as the principled consistent conservative, who stands up for principle, no matter what, when others fail to do so... who has never been afraid to take the hard stands that others haven't.. he is the only candidate who... And when someone bills themself as "called by God" - then that is sort of applying an imprimatur that bespeaks a sort of nobility and honesty above all others in the race... he set the standard himself for himself... and no one should complain when others hold him to it.. As for Newt, he's never claimed to be anything more than a sinner being saved by grace, when it comes to Godly endorsements... and his supporters have a real good idea of who he is... warts and all and all and all.. Santorum is the one who paints himself as well beyond politics as usual... We don't present him as a some sort of saint.. We offer him to America precisely because we think he is The Bastard who is tough enough, stubborn enough, profoundly enough prepared to make the changes needed to reach into and around this country and pull it back from the brink starting Day One. Santorum's supporters are doing exactly what barack's supporters did in 2008, they look at Santorum as some sort of Messiah, with his encouragement... and they are making the same mistake the dems voters did in 2008... This is my reasonableness post in response to your reasonable post, which was very lovely. I am actually going to read it again... because there are some facts in there I want to make sure i remember. www.newt.org/donate ;) Do it. You'll feel better.

If he were such a strong pro life supporter - the VERY LAST candidate he would CAMPAIGN for would be pro abortion Mitt.

And then add the sanctity of marriage - Rick is a compromiser for political favors w/another liberal platform - PRO HOMO MARRIAGE.

Slick Rick says one thing - but campaigns for the opposite. His values are ‘surface’ and NOT DEEP - they will move to where ever there is gain for him. He’s a dime a dozen, political hack, a known compromiser. The GOP E know who they can ‘use’ when in need.