The Pennsylvania Treason

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

[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.

[Tamzee]

Funny thing is they claim they will never "sell out" by voting for so-and-so because of such-and-such value or endorsement or vote...

If voting for someone because they have an opinion you disagree with is "selling out" then technically every vote is some varying degree of "selling out" unless you write yourself in.

They can't even pretend to share all the values of Toomey because Toomey just endorsed Specter, yet they don't want to "sell out" and vote for Specter so they'll write in Toomey???

[Polycarp IV]

Spectre borked Bork. I'm not sure when or who his last victim was.

Spectre is 100% radical pro-abort, except when he's up for re election.

Thanks for posting the excerpt from humaneventsonline.com. That offers some hope in a dismal situation.

[Polycarp IV]

yet they don't want to "sell out" and vote for Specter so

I have never voted for Spectre. So how are you going to malign and insult me now?

[nopardons]

That was one of THE best pieces of logic,ever to grace FR.

And to put the icing on the cake,you managed to really nail them but good. :-)

[Polycarp IV]

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

Baloney. Just for the heck of it, I did a little scut work. Its been used, in both the WHINGE and WHINGing form, a total of 3 times in the last 2 years on this Forum, one of those instances by you in 2002.

Your claims on colloquialisms are no more valid that your claims on this thread in general.

[Consort]

Voting for a Democrat, pro-life or otherwise, empowers the pro-choice Dems, and if the Dems take control, then pro-choice (not pro-life) Dems will chair the committees. Voting third party also helps the Democrats.

[Tamzee]

Try consulting a dictionary before being tempted to show off that blazing intellect of yours.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whinge&r=67

2 entries found for whinge.
whinge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hwnj, wnj)
intr.v. Chiefly British whinged, whing·ing, whing·es
To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner.

[Tamzee]

Whoops, sorry, didn't mean to go all logical in the midst of a carnival mirror thread...

Thanks ;-)

[Polycarp IV]

Try following the debate prior to engaging that patronizing keyboard of yours. My point was that the term is not a common colloquialism on FR.

[Tamzee]

I've seen it a number of times... you also questioned nopardons general spelling initially, in a "patronizing" fashion yet.

Regardless... Specter's lifetime ACU rating is 45, he is a centrist who votes with us about half the time. Hoeffel's lifetime ACU rating is 8 and Hillary's is 11.

Any "conservative" that sits quietly by and welcomes in a new Senator even more leftist than Hillary out of some perverse "principle" is a moron.

[Polycarp IV]

Any "conservative" that sits quietly by and welcomes in a new Senator even more leftist than Hillary out of some perverse "principle" is a moron.

Pro-life is not "some perverse principle," moron.

"LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Notice LIFE comes first?

If you can't get it right on LIFE, you can't be expected to get it right on anything.

I'll vote in December, but I won't vote for PA Senator unless there is a pro-life third party candidate. Does that make me a "moron"? In your small mind, maybe. But I'm not too concerned about what you "think."

[Tamzee]

Past my bedtime, folks, goodnight and sweet dreams whichever way your vote swings :-)

[Toddsterpatriot]

What happened to Borin' Orrin? Is he retiring?

Republicans term-limit their Chairmen. He'll still be on the comittee, probably.

[ninenot]

Borin' Orrin has his own troubles, just beginning now. Apparently some sort of conflict of interest thing.

Besides which, he's a jerk.

[annalex]

You are right, except the litmus test I'd like to see is, vote GOP if the GOP candidate shows pro-life work. Not "is" pro-life, because that means next to nothing. Otherwise vote third party.

As far as conservatives (and libertarians) are concerned, establishment GOP is enemy territory, along with the Dems, of course. The GOP can be redeemed, but only the present turncoat class in Washington is beaten, and beaten bad.

[victim soul]

DITTO:

"The GOP pols should know that unless there is tangible legislative progress in the rights of the unborn, the conservatives will support third parties regardless of the consequences for the GOP."

[annalex]

Implicit in your graphical comment is the notion that religious conservatives are cranky babies that should be plugged with pacifiers. That insulting notion indeed exists in the Republican party. The truth is that while a baby depends on the parent throughout, the conservatives depend on the GOP only as long as the GOP delivers real food. But the GOP depends on the conservatives if it wants to win elections. Next time you feel the urge to display arrogance, reflect on where the GOP derives its power.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

As much as I despise Bush and Santorum's betrayal of Toomey, Toomey isn't broke. He has his wife, children and probably other supportive members of his family, a means to earn a decent living, and many loyal grassroots supporters who will be willing to work for him for another elective office like governor after his excellent run against Specter. I am more concerned with the ramifications of Specter's victory regarding conservative and pro-life issues, and even more importantly the state of the nation.

It is clear that like the democrats, there are many on this board who place the Republican party above the good of the nation. Some on this forum are capable of inflicting far greater cruelty and damage to their fellows than are Republican Pols. When they stand before almighty God, they are going to be surprised to learn that God is not going to excuse their visciousness because it was done in the name of politics. Neither is God going to forgive those who are aware of the evil their fellows propagate, and choose to do nothing.

[Tamzee]

There is quite a bit that could be gleaned from my graphic other than that narrow and nuanced interpretation you prefer. Conservatives are just as reliant on the GOP to see that our agenda get some legs at all and I'm sick of other conservatives throwing a wrench into the works because they refuse to understand we are a MINORITY. We make up LESS THAN HALF of the electorate and as such we need to work with moderates and accept that we won't get everything we want. Thank GOD the Greens are a minority and can't get everything they want... it works the same with us, unfortunately, until we educate enough of the public to BECOME a majority.

We're damn lucky to have Santorum, we certainly aren't automatically entitled to him given how we are outnumbered by the liberals and moderates in Pennsylvania. Moderates helped us put him in office and we need to continue to stick together on both conservative and centrist Repubicans.

[annalex]

You've given me a stock response, that doesn't apply to situations when the conservative agenda is damaged unnecessarily. The article explains quite clearly that Bush and Santorum's endorsement of Spectre was not brought about by any reasonable political horse trading, but by a deliberate desire to hold the religious conservatives in check. If you really have a point about political realities, try to make it in the context of this excellent article, and hold the cute graphics.

Taking a broader look, we of course understand the necessity to compromise, but a compromise is useful only if it advances the agenda. Pro-life agenda did not advance under the GOP. Matter of fact, I am not aware of any conservative plank that has advanced, despite the congressional majorities and the control of the White house.