Replies

Not many people were more upset with Rick Santorum's endorsement of Arlen Specter than I was. Here's the text of the e-mail I sent to Senator Santorum on March 22, 2004:

"Dear Senator Santorum:

Let me begin by saying that I am not a resident of Pennsylvania, so I am not technically your constituent. But as a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, you represent Republicans throughout the nation, and as such I feel at the liberty to drop you this friendly note.

I am an active participant in the conservative movement, and regularly mention your name not only as an example of the type of leadership, platform and voting record Republicans need to get elected in competitive states and districts, but also as my preferred candidate for President in 2008. I defended you when you were unfairly attacked for your foresighted criticism of the pro-sodomy arguments in the Lawrence case, and I am certainly proud to have someone like you in the Senate to speak out and act on issues near and dear to me, such as opposition to abortion and judicial activism and support for tax relief and national defense. But I am at a loss for words when someone asks me why you are actively supporting the reelection of Senator Arlen Specter, who disagrees with us in every single one of those important issues.

I know that tradition dictates that incumbent Senators not oppose the reelection of their colleagues from the same party, especially when they represent the same state. And as Republican Conference Chairman, it would be unbecoming for you to actively campaign for the defeat of a Republican colleague. But is it really necessary for you to run commercials supporting Arlen Specter's candidacy when he is running against Congressman Pat Toomey, a true conservative Republican from a blue-collar Democrat district (just like a certain Congressman Santorum from a decade ago) who can lead the party to a statewide victory?

I am especially disheartened by your claim that Arlen Specter votes with conservatives "on votes that matter." When the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which you had been fighting for years to pass, got to the floor last year, it was nearly derailed by a sham substitute amendment by Dick Durbin that would not have prohibited a single abortion so long as the doctor stated that the mother's health (including mental health) may be in danger. You know better than I that passage of the substitute amendment would have signaled the defeat of the PBA ban, and would have been a major setback in the pro-life movement. I remember that you spoke eloquently on the Senate floor as to why the sham substitute had to be defeated, and that the only way to end that heinous practice was to vote against Durbin's substitute amendment. Wouldn't you call that a "vote that matters"? I sure do. And, in case you've forgotten, Arlen Specter voted in favor of Durbin's sham substitute, and the only reason it failed was because a few Democrat Senators, most of whom were up for reelection in 2004, voted against the amendment. Arlen Specter can only fool ignorant pro-lifers into believing that he supported the PBA ban, since he voted for its final passage, the results of which were a foregone conclusion. (Why, even Tom Daschle voted for the final bill! I hope that, in his Senate race against John Thune, Daschle doesn't run ads saying that he supported President Bush's agenda "on votes that matter.") But most pro-lifers are not that ignorant, and we will not support someone like Arlen Specter for reelection.

I could go on for paragraphs about Specter's voting record, the dangers posed by someone as unreliable as him serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (had Specter not opposed Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey back in 1992, which would have saved millions of lives), the fact that Governor Rendell would name Specter's replacement in case he can't serve out his entire six-year term, and how Specter's proven inability to attract votes from blue-collar Democrats in the Pittsburgh area and in the "T," not to mention the fact that he cannot rally the conservative base, will make him more vulnerable to a challenge from Congressman Hoeffel (who will not allow Specter to win by his usual margins in the Philly metro area) than would Pat Toomey (who would defeat Hoeffel by winning votes from pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense Democrats, the group that gave you two House victories and two Senate victories), but I know that you already know all of that. My plea to you is that you think about these things, and reconsider your participation in an active campaign to defeat Pat Toomey in the GOP primary. If, God forbid, Specter defeats Toomey, then it would certainly be acceptable for you to campaign actively for Specter's reelection. But now is not the time to go wobbly.

I hope that you receive this note in the spirit with which it was intended, and that, after meditation and prayer, you do the right thing.

Sincerely yours in Christ,"

However, two years have gone by, and we now face the prospect of a solidly conservative senator such as Rick Santorum being challenged by a purportedly pro-life and nominally pro-gun (but indubitably liberal on every other issue) Democrat with a very famous name. I share your disappointment in the fact that PA does not have two conservative Senators partly due to Senator Santorum's decision to support the incumbent RINO Specter (as did President Bush, BTW, a fact which ironically ended up costing him PA in the general election), but allowing Bob Casey, Jr. to be elected will give PA *zero* conservative senators. Pat Toomey has already made peace with Rick Santorum, and is actively supporting his reelection. It is time for all conservatives to do likewise.

As for the polls showing Santorum down by 10%-15%, it's too early to worry. While I'd rather have Senator Santorum up by 10%-15%, I am certain that it will be a 5-point race going into election day. If history holds, Casey will underperform your average Democrat in the Philly metro area (as even the polls in which he's winning big statewide have shown) and Senator Santorum will hold his base and win. Here's my analysis of the race and my prediction (it's a few months old, but still think it's correct): http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/2005/08/rick-santorum-vs-bob-casey-jr.html