Replies

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.

Re: "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."

You presume too much but I am noticing that is pretty common on this thread. What is it with you PA voters?

In one sense they are responsible for the actions of their peers but only too a point. As an example many voters punished the GOP after the Nixon scandal. Was that fair? It does not matter, it is the way of things and you had better take it into consideration. It will always be so so railing at the wind is pointless. I read somewhere you are known by the company you keep. Don't like that, then take it up with the writer of the Bible.

Re: "The reason WHY they chose to do this (not vote for Specter) 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."

Again you presume too much, darling this is positively epidemic. You have no window into the soul of thousands of voters, stop pretending you do. I don't buy it and I doubt anyone else does either. The only people who would agree with this pompous pronouncement is someone who wills himself to agree. I can't take this seriously, you are entering into a world of fantasy. People will make all sorts of calculations on the support they give or deny to Santorum, for you to assign a moral value to what you have no idea about is asinine.