[Mark in the Old South]

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.

[Soul Seeker]

Ah, I see.

So the new litmus test of whether someone is pro-life is whether they ONLY support pro-Life candidates. Gotcha. I must have missed the memo where politicians are no longer responsible only for their own actions, but those of their contemporaries.

To extend the natural conclusion of that argument, we have no pro-life politicians. We would also have few "true" pro-Life voters.

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.

The reason WHY they chose to do this rather than support the conservative PRO LIFE candidate IS subject to a moral compromise. They are not doing so to benefit conservatism or the pro life position, who is kidding whom here. They would be doing so out of malice toward Santorum for not supporting Toomey. I don't care how you attempt to justify this decision, it is still based on the wrong motivation. It makes it morally equivalent to a political calculation on the part of Santorum.