Replies

I was speaking in generalities. I did not accuse you of not voting for Santorum as I had read your comments stating you would but perhaps I could make that clearer in my statements. Context of argument.

Me-Not supporting Santorum is no better than supporting Spectre. You'll be equally wrong

You-I disagree with the supposition. One can make a "political calculation" not to support and fight again another day.

me-we are to speak about political calculations, Santorum made a calculation he felt was right. To support Spectre. He is raked over the coals for it. Yet you suggest another calculation that would result in his loss from the Senate is acceptable. How is that any different? Seems we're right back where we started with my contention there is absolutely no difference. Equally wrong.

You suggested someone could make a political calculation to deny Santorum the Senate. That is no different than Santorum making a political calculation to support Spectre. Morally both individuals are on the same plane. It goes back to my original point that those that choose not to support Spectre, are no better than Santorum choosing to support Spectre and have no moral ground to walk if they emulate the behavior they state to despise. Because he "did it first" is not acceptable justification.

I WILL fault others that turn elsewhere. As they have faulted Santorum. Choose to engage in the same behavior, than they deserve the same condemnation. And I DID condemn Rick for that move.

Re: "It goes back to my original point that those that choose not to support Spectre, are no better than Santorum choosing to support Spectre and have no moral ground to walk if they emulate the behavior they state to despise"

The last part of the above sentence makes no sense to me. But as to "no moral ground" I beg to differ. A person who does not support Specter being a "moral" equal to Santorum supporting Specter is just hog wash. Maybe your moral equal but Santorum says he is pro life and Specter says he is not, for the pro life voter that is not acceptable. He or she has the advantage of consistency when they refuse to vote for Specter and look for a pro life candidate.

The issue of "can they win" is another issue but it is manipulation to demand a vote for a man just because there is a R behind his name. By your supposition an Republican who is not likely to get more than 30%of the popular vote should not be voted for because his more popular Democratic opponent is likely to win. Is not that 30% just throwing away their vote. How on earth are we going to influence these politicians if we do not support a better candidate, even one who may lose. Your formula is guaranteed to produce mediocre and con men in office. You also have no right to demand support where it is not deserved and to suggest they are morally wrong is false and manipulative. People have a right to vote for who they wish even for a man who may loose. Our Constitution has been trashed and the election system is in shambles and attitudes that insist on more of the same will not win me over nor will it fix one da## thing.

Re: "You suggested someone could make a political calculation to deny Santorum the Senate. That is no different than Santorum making a political calculation to support Spectre. Morally both individuals are on the same plane."

No they are not the same. Santorum claims to be prolife and conservative but supported a man who is neither prolife nor conservative and is in fact a clear and present danger to returning the Court to one that behaves in a legal and responsible manner. Santorum did that, he did not have to he could have shut his mouth (it would be refreshing if a few pol did so) A voter who refuses to follow Rick's lead is not morally equal UNLESS he also supports a similar candidate, but that is not what I was describing nor is a voter who stays at home. The voter who refuses to vote for Specter by staying home or the voter who votes for a conservative prolife third party candidate has not compromised their moral position, Rick has compromised his.

He has no leg to stand on on issues such as abortion, or rule of law judges. Words are meaningless when compromised by actions. They are not moral equals. Don't believe me go into any family where one of the parents do drugs or drinks too much and see how effective they are in keeping their kids straight.