Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Pennsylvania Treason
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 1, 2004 | Mark Crutcher

Posted on 05/03/2004 1:26:31 PM PDT by Polycarp IV

The Pennsylvania Treason


Posted: May 1, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Mark Crutcher

I have often asserted that, for the pro-life movement, the only practical distinction between the Democrat and Republican parties is that one is an enemy who will stab us in the chest and the other is a friend who will stab us in the back.

Tuesday's Republican primary in Pennsylvania proved my point. Hard-core abortion enthusiast Republican Arlen Specter was being challenged by pro-lifer Pat Toomey for the U.S. Senate. As the incumbent, Specter was predicted to win easily. But as Election Day approached, the polls clearly showed that Toomey was closing in fast and had a legitimate shot to pull off an upset.

That's when the GOP's power brokers pulled out the heavy guns. President George W. Bush personally rushed to Pennsylvania and implored Republicans to get behind the candidacy of ... Arlen Specter. Equally amazing, Pennsylvania's other senator, Rick Santorum, also chose to walk away from his long-espoused pro-life principles. He joined Bush on the campaign trail and urged voters to defeat the pro-life challenger.

The fact that Specter's eventual margin of victory was so razor-thin made one thing absolutely undeniable. Without the influence and treachery of Bush and Santorum, we would have seen a raging pro-abort who has always been viciously hostile toward anything that the pro-life movement does replaced with a pro-lifer. It is laughable to suggest that the combined efforts of a Republican president and a Republican senator can't influence even 2 percent of the votes in a Republican primary. Given that, it is simply a fact that Bush and Santorum cost the pro-life movement this election.

One of the things that made this particular election so crucial for the pro-life movement is that, if re-elected, Specter's seniority will give him the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pro-lifers often say that we must support the Republicans and George Bush because of Supreme Court appointments. However, that is now a dead issue given that no pro-life nominee to the Supreme Court is going to get past Specter.

If George Bush didn't know this when he used his influence to get Specter re-elected, then he really is as stupid as the Democrats say he is.

But of course, Bush is not stupid. He knew that by insuring Specter's victory he was ending any chance of putting a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court. That may not have been his goal; it was simply the price he was willing to pay to support an incumbent Republican. Moreover, Specter's term is six years, which means that even if Bush wins in November, Specter will be in place for Bush's entire second term and beyond. With that reality in place, the practical difference between who John Kerry might get confirmed to the Supreme Court and who Bush might get confirmed becomes zero.

Bush and Santorum defenders will claim that if Toomey had won he might turn around and lose in the general election and, thereby, turn control of the Senate over to the Democrats.

That's garbage. First, upon what do these people base the assumption that Toomey could somehow beat the senior incumbent United States senator in his state, but then not be able to beat a non-incumbent Democrat? If their claim is that Toomey's advocacy for the right-to-life makes him unelectable in a Pennsylvania general election, how do they explain Santorum's election?

Second, from a pro-life perspective, who cares if the Democrats win if the alternative is a pro-abortion Republican? Are we supposed to believe that the unborn are better off with their fate is in the hands of pro-abortion Republicans than pro-abortion Democrats?

Third, what happened to principle? Regardless of political considerations, if Bush and Santorum were more than just rhetorically committed to the pro-life cause they would have never come to the aid of a pro-abortion candidate who was about to lose to a pro-life one. In fact, when they saw that Toomey actually had a chance, their response should have been to do what they could to secure the victory not work against it.

While we're on the subject of principle, there are going to be those who try to dismiss what these two did by regurgitating that old chin drivel about abortion being just one issue, and the GOP has to look at "other issues" as well. It's the same old worn-out "no litmus test" nonsense that we hear ad nauseam.

I'm always curious about this particular argument. I wonder whether the people who make it are willing to apply it across the board, or if it's just a convenient way to dodge the abortion issue. For example, if it were discovered that Specter was secretly a member of the Ku Klux Klan, would that be a litmus test? Would Bush and Santorum still campaign for him saying that they disagreed with him on this one issue but that they have to look at all these "other issues" as well?

I think not, and that points out the abysmal dishonesty of what they did in Pennsylvania. If a Republican candidate was a Klansman who openly espoused racism, neither of these guys would be caught in the same county with him. You can also bet that this Klansman's position on "other issues" would never even come up.

So despite all their beautiful rhetoric about the humanity of the unborn child, the fact that they will also work to elect politicians who say unborn children should be legally butchered by the millions speaks much louder. Their message is that when the subject is racism nothing else matters, but when the subject is baby killing there are "other issues" to consider. If you believe those are the actions of people who are truly committed to the pro-life cause, then you are in desperate need of a reality check.

In the final analysis, the Bush/Santorum betrayal was obviously the result of party politics. These guys sold the unborn down the river for political reasons, and they felt comfortable doing so primarily because the pro-life movement has always let them get away with it. For 30 years we have shown the Republican Party that whatever they do we'll stick with them, and as long as we keep sending that message we are fools to think they will ever change.

That is the bottom line, and while the American pro-life establishment is so enamored with having a seat at the Republican table that they will never say this, I will:

Through their participation in The Pennsylvania Treason, the Republican Party, George Bush and Rick Santorum have lost the right to ever again ask for the support of pro-lifers.

By the way, in a speech he gave to a Catholic prayer breakfast less than a week after the election, Rick Santorum told the audience that they should "... get closer to God to hear what He wants done ... God speaks in whispers and you will not know His will unless you are close (to Him). He is calling, let me assure you, He is calling."

Apparently, Santorum believes that God called him to work for baby killers.

I'm skeptical.


Mark Crutcher is president of Life Dynamics Incorporated of Denton, Texas.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: ex-snook
I just received this from a friend prominent in PA pro-life political work.

" Santorum addressed a group of pro-lifers at the March for Life in the Senate Office Building. I was there and witnessed Santorum tell us that Specter made a pact with Santorum, that he will allow all of Bush's nominees to have an up or down vote in the Senate as Judiciary Chair. There were many witnesses. This was Santorum's purported reason at that time for supporting Specter."

How can "the single bullet theory" Spectre be trusted on an important issue like this, if this is even a true representation of any pact between Santorum and Spectre?

21 posted on 05/03/2004 2:15:04 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ramcat
I'm glad you think so. Therefore you will be leaving all us pro-life fools on this thread in peace, by not further attempting to enlighten us by your "wisdom", I presume?
22 posted on 05/03/2004 2:16:37 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Hard-core abortion enthusiast Republican Arlen Specter

Huh? "Enthusiast"? So he watches abortions on his plasma home theatre with a bucket of popcorn? Hyperbole getting a bit silly with regard to Specter.

23 posted on 05/03/2004 2:19:03 PM PDT by montag813 ("A nation can survive fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramcat
Use your wisdom to elect John Kerry

Hmmm...how about a link to all the posts in which pro-life GOP FReepers opposed to Spectre have said they're going to vote for Kerry? Thanks.

24 posted on 05/03/2004 2:19:14 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Hyperbole getting a bit silly

The author of this piece is known for his hyperbole. Check out the link to his website.

That said, Spectre has a 100% hard core pro-abort voting record, and is responsible for borking Judge Bork, and has always imposed a pro-abort litmus test on judiciary nominees. Sure, I'd call that a Hard-core abortion enthusiast.

25 posted on 05/03/2004 2:22:47 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
I don't know how many times I have said that there will be NO conservative agenda ever push by this "Two-Party Cartel". Only when All true conservatives get out of this cartel & vote a 3rd party will things change. I guarantee it.
26 posted on 05/03/2004 2:23:16 PM PDT by Digger (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
I have given up on the Republican Party. I never did trust Bush to begin with. The Constitution Party will get my vote this November.
27 posted on 05/03/2004 2:24:34 PM PDT by RaginCajunTrad (Proud to be a Trad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Digger
I guarantee it.

I'm as close to going 3rd party now after The PA Treason as I've ever been. (Wish your guarantee was backed by more than your opinion.)

28 posted on 05/03/2004 2:25:54 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: RaginCajunTrad
I have given up on the Republican Party. The Constitution Party will get my vote this November.

I called them the day after The PA Treason, I'm waiting on an info packet in the mail from their nat'l headquarters.

30 posted on 05/03/2004 2:27:43 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV; Ramcat
Well, Ramcat is correct: if the conservatives do what I think they should and sit out the election or (better) vote third parties, then Kerry's presidency, as well as Democrat control of the Congress becomes more likely.

Let us examine that outcome. On the downside, Roe v. Wade remains law of the land. On the upside, the GOP learns a lesson delivered in the only language they understand, electoral loss. This paves a way toward a more conservative GOP at some point in the future.

Now consider that the present GOP majorities get reelected. On the downside, Roe v. Wade remains law of the land. On the other dowside, the GOP learns to take its conservative base for granted. On the upside we may get another $600 tax cut, and a spending orgy in Washinton goes on.
31 posted on 05/03/2004 2:31:21 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Ramcat
...Ramcat is correct...if the conservatives do what I think they should and sit out the election or (better) vote third parties

I must part ways then with you and Ramcat. I will vote for Bush. I will vote for any other pro-life candidates, GOP or Democrat, or Third Party if the others are pro-abort. My local congressman is a fairly pro-life democrat, and I have voted for him. I'll vote for Santorum next time again too.

But I will not vote for Spectre.

32 posted on 05/03/2004 2:38:11 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
"Through their participation in The Pennsylvania Treason, the Republican Party, George Bush and Rick Santorum have lost the right to ever again ask for the support of pro-lifers. "

Treason is a strong word, and seriously misused in this article. To accuse Bush of treason for their support of a candidate, even though that candidate is pro-choice, is a serious error.

If one wants to find the meaning of treason in the United States of America, one only need look at our Constitution.

Neither Bush nor Santorum come anywhere close to treason. This article is a scurrilous attack.
33 posted on 05/03/2004 2:40:41 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Here is the section from Article 3 of our Constitution that defines Treason:


Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.



The article posted is a vicious slander. There is no treason involved.
34 posted on 05/03/2004 2:44:25 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Well, voting for Bush is consistent with the litmus test we should have since Bush is (nominally) pro-life. But as a whole, the pro-life litmus test will cost the GOP and many disheartened conservatives, although apparently not you, will not vote for Bush either. After all, he is the one endorsing Spectre, so his personally being pro-life apparently is not worth much.
35 posted on 05/03/2004 2:46:15 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Nobody said anything about treason against the United States. The treason is against the conservatives, and is very real.
36 posted on 05/03/2004 2:47:22 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
However, that is now a dead issue given that no pro-life nominee to the Supreme Court is going to get past Specter.

I'm not entirely sure of that. If Bush nominates a pro-life justice, Specter will be under tremendous pressure within the Republican Caucus to give him a hearing and vote for him. We'll see what happens.

37 posted on 05/03/2004 2:47:34 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Look, I'm not looking to pick a fight here and I apologize is I offended you.
If you think there is a better, more conservative senator than Rick Santorum, I think you don't know Rick.
Politics is a tough game. I believe when the Lord was here said something to the effect that "My Kingdom is not of this world".
We had an election and Specter won. If conservatives sit out the election it will get Kerry elected.
If you think things won't be worse under a President Kerry and a Democrat congress, I think you're mistaken to the point of either knowing very little about politics or you're quite naive.
38 posted on 05/03/2004 2:47:43 PM PDT by Ramcat (Thank You American Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Obviously, this author is referring to treason towards the conservative cause, not the country. You're being disingenuous or thick headed.
39 posted on 05/03/2004 2:47:58 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
"Obviously, this author is referring to treason towards the conservative cause, not the country. You're being disingenuous or thick headed."

I am being neither. Accusing a sitting President of treason, for any reason, is a scurrilous slander. What did Bush do? He supported a Republican candidate, and an incumbent at that.

A Republican. You don't like him...that's obvious. Bush supported him. There it is. For a Republican President to support a Republican legislator simply cannot be called treason under any conditions.

Treason is a serious word...a fighting word, in my opinion.

The author could have used the word "betrayal" or "stupidity" or any of a number of other words. He chose the most emotionally-loaded word possible.

Bush endorsed an incumbent Republican for re-election. Hardly treason. Again, I call it a vicious slander. You may call it what you choose.
40 posted on 05/03/2004 2:56:06 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson