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: 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.

WOW! This is an incredibly powerful article. The author is correct about the above. I wonder how long it will take Bush and Santorum to realize it.

If the election were held tomorrow, I would not be voting for Santorum. It is doubtful I will be voting for him next time. It would be nice to see a more honest, less ambitious conservative run against Rick, next time, as uncertain as I may be about THAT persons chances. May be if we could find a good candidate now and begin to raise the money we'd have a shot.

I say this principally because I believe Santorum can no longer be trusted to vote in the pro-life interest. While I have never been much on message or teach-them-a-lesson politics, Santorum's betrayal and the potentiality for its repercussions are so huge, it would be nice to see Santorum lose his Senate seat due to the efforts of the pro-lifers he betrayed.

Message: We can vote you in and we can vote you out.

41 posted on 05/03/2004 3:09:27 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH (For the good of our country,our state and the conservative cause, replace Santorum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Is it possible that the Bush team knows something about Toomey, that most of us don't know???

Is it possible that their internal numbers show Bush/Cheney winning PA with Arlen running for re-election. (And Probably winning.)

Would you rather have Toomey/Hoeffel as Senator and Kerry as President OR Specter as Senator and Bush as President???

Despite Arlens flaws I'd rather have Bush doing the nominating.
42 posted on 05/03/2004 3:14:11 PM PDT by proudpapa (of three.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Specter is worth giving up the Senate Majority to Tom Daschle? Giving the Chair of the Senate Judiciary to Patrick Leahy? If you wish hard enough, you wish may be granted.

Thank you!
The Pat Toomey orphans are so lost they are becoming irrational these days.
It's sad. Hopefully they will wake up to reality by Nov.

43 posted on 05/03/2004 6:53:41 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
"The Pennsylvania Treason"

Oh PLEASE. Give a break with these drama-queen articles.

44 posted on 05/03/2004 6:56:34 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
The primary is over. Realpolitics rears its ugly head.
45 posted on 05/03/2004 8:07:26 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa; Jorge; TOUGH STOUGH; MineralMan; Ramcat; Zack Nguyen; annalex; montag813
Pro-abort Repub. Spectre was Senator for the loss of Bush Sr. and Dole. Pro-abort Repub. Tom Ridge was Gov. for Dole's loss. Why would ANY FReeper still believe a turncoat Spectre will help Bush win PA?

That is what is most pathetic here, that FReepers refuse to examine history rationally and learn from it. Spectre will do nothing to energize Bush's core constituency in PA. Bush MIGHT win PA, but it will definitely be in spite of, not because of, Spectre. Toomey supporters know and grasp this reality.

Furthermore, Bush and Santorum have no stick whatsoever with which to beat Spectre if Spectre continues to apply his pro-abort litmus test. They knew that when they made their Faustian bargain with him.

But This wasn't about getting Bush reelected.

This was about punishing a conservative upstart like Toomey for daring to defy the GOP party line and challenge a worthless liberal like Spectre. Those of you who defend Bush and Santorum in this obvious flash of power play, merciless party punishment for challenging the GOP status quo and intimidation against anyone in the future considering challenging a liberal GOP incumbent, are blind fools. The GOP party is god, and damn the principles and platform that supposedly undergird it. Screw any conservative that tries to unseat even a RINO like Spectre. That IS treason against conservatism and the GOP party platform.

By the way, treason has a standard english language definition, and its number one, primary definition is noted here:

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

46 posted on 05/03/2004 8:15:58 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All
The author needs one of these...


47 posted on 05/03/2004 9:15:26 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Betrayal, but no, not treason.
48 posted on 05/03/2004 9:18:07 PM PDT by Petronski (John Kerry: DIVEST your Benedict Arnold Shares! Divest Heinz!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
OK, from you, I'll accept that "treason" might be a "bit harsh" ;-)
49 posted on 05/03/2004 9:25:06 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
As do the babies still whinging about this,on FR.
50 posted on 05/03/2004 9:27:33 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
babies still whinging

(oh, the irony of it all...)

51 posted on 05/03/2004 9:29:35 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
You don't know the Brit colloquialism, "WHINGE",I see.LOL

And you need to look up "irony" too. :-)

52 posted on 05/03/2004 9:36:24 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
What I hate about this situation is that, no matter how a conservative might feel about Specter, we must support him in November.

Senator Joe Hoeffel is an unconscionable idea.

53 posted on 05/03/2004 9:37:39 PM PDT by Petronski (John Kerry: DIVEST your Benedict Arnold Shares! Divest Heinz!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Right you are...as usual.
54 posted on 05/03/2004 9:39:28 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Yep... a slew of "conservatives" that need spankings and naps.

Did you know several Freepers will (insert Diane Chambers voice) NEVER FORGIVE SANTORUM?!?!?

55 posted on 05/03/2004 9:42:13 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
"The irony of it all" is a known American colloquialism. And while WHINGE might be a Brit colloquialism, please show me a link for "WHINGing." Thanks ;-)
56 posted on 05/03/2004 9:43:05 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
I've already said I'll vote for Bush and Santorum again.

But I'm not voting for Spectre until someone can show me how he's any better than the Dem who would be Judicial Committee chairman instead. Spectre is well known to impose a pro-abort litmus test on all judicial nominees. At 76, its doubtful he'll even attempt reelection in 6 years, is he's still alive.

So what, praytell, can Bush possibly do to him when he borks Bush's pro-life judicial nominees as Judiciary Committee chairman?

57 posted on 05/03/2004 9:47:14 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
They'll also NEVER "forgive" Arnold and a whole bunch of others.

The fact is, these purists/MORE CONSERFVATIVE THAN THOU/DOGS IN THE MANGER,would rather lose an election than win one.They'd much prefer to NEVER get one thing they claim to want,than get at least 1/2 of the things they supposedly yearn for.

58 posted on 05/03/2004 9:53:23 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
A much misused and over used one on FR.

WHINGE is also used by Americans and is pretty common on FR.

I don't do links. Go do your own bloody scut work.

59 posted on 05/03/2004 9:54:56 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
1. When was the last time Specter sabotaged a judge?
2. Specter is not radical pro-choice... Specter voted for the partial-birth abortion ban and Laci and Conner's Law (Chaffee and Snowe voted against that, BTW, Specter sided with us)
3. Even if Specter wins, we still have options to keep him from chairing the judicial committee.


"Also, the members of the Republican Conference could make one of two rule changes to prevent a Specter-led Judiciary Committee. First, they could waive the term limit for Hatch. Alternatively, they could circumvent rules and tradition and skip Specter for Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), a pro-life conservative who is fourth in seniority"

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1552
60 posted on 05/03/2004 10:02:11 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | 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