The Pennsylvania Treason

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 1, 2004 | Mark Crutcher

[Polycarp IV]

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?

[Polycarp IV]

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?

[montag813]

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.

[Polycarp IV]

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.

[Polycarp IV]

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.

[Digger]

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.

[RaginCajunTrad]

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.

[Polycarp IV]

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.)

[Polycarp IV]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[Polycarp IV]

...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.

[MineralMan]

"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.

[MineralMan]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[annalex]

Nobody said anything about treason against the United States. The treason is against the conservatives, and is very real.

[Zack Nguyen]

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.

[Ramcat]

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.

[Polycarp IV]

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

[MineralMan]

"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.