Even though we appear to see this Santorum/Specter thing from very different points of view, I appreciate the courtesy and tact you have maintained in this debate. You are a gentleman.
With that said … :)
I believe your use of the terms ‘repercussions’, ‘viability’, ‘should be seen as supporting him’, ‘comes with a price’ … are all realistic, but unfortunate, considerations that spring from the you scratch my back/I’ll scratch yours philosophy of the modern American political process. Much of politics these days amounts to nothing more than attractively-packaged extortion.
The more emphasis a leader places on the potential political repercussions of his decisions, the more right and wrong and adherence to principle are relegated to ‘afterthought’ status.
I’d like to know your thoughts about the following:
Pat Toomey (an uncompromising Reagan-esque conservative) lost the Pennsylvania Republican primary to Arlen Specter by 1.5% of the votes cast. Most experts believe that the President’s and Rick Santorum’s endorsements of Specter were worth far more than that 1.5%. So, in effect, those endorsements provided the margin of victory -- and then some -- for Specter.
Many also believe that Pat Toomey stood an excellent chance of winning the general election as well, against democrat Joe Hoeffel.
So logic would dictate that, if the President and Santorum had not endorsed Arlen Specter back in April, Pat Toomey (a principled conservative, rather than a Republican-in-name-only) would be sworn into the senate in January, and John Kyl (yet another principled conservative) would most likely be the front runner for the chairmanship of the senate Judiciary Committee. Arlen Specter would have gone the way of Tom Daschle. The need for this debate over the prospect of Specter chairing that all-important committee would be non-existent, and I daresay both you and I would be much happier about the makeup of the senate as a whole, and the makeup of the Judiciary Committee in particular.
But that isn’t happening. Why? Because, back in April, Rick Santorum placed ‘remaining viable’, and ‘unwanted repurcussions’, and ‘the price of non-support’ before allegiance to conservative principle. Had the senator turned his back on considerations of political process, and focused instead on choosing right over wrong, all of us (he included) would be better off today.
He is now facing an opportunity to redeem himself. He can either (once again) bow to politics as usual (with its intrinsic spider web of exigencies), or he can do what he knows is right and support for election to the chairmanship from the members of the Judiciary Committee a man who has the best interests of America, and uncompromising reverence for the Constitution, at the forefront of any decision he makes. Rick Santorum, and you and I, know that Arlen Specter is not that man.
When concern for appearances and convenient alliances with acknowledged ideological enemies cloud the decision-making process to the point where the ultimate goal (i.e., the preservation of life, liberty, and sovereignty) is compromised, such political considerations become toxic – not only to the decision-maker, but to those who elected him to represent them.
I don’t know what, if any, religious beliefs you embrace. But scripture is replete with admonitions against compromise of principle. Isaiah 33:15 assures us that he who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion, and keeps his hand from accepting bribes will prevail. Veiled, but powerful, forms of political extortion and bribes permeate the process we are debating here. And I would hope that a man of Rick Santorum’s strongly-voiced Christian character would rise above it all, and place his faith in doing what he knows is right, rather than what is politically expedient (yet again).
~ joanie
When you look at it that way the whole thing makes me physically sick. And Santorum is thinking of shafting us again!