Rick Santorum and the Partial Birth Abortion Decision [an abortionist lover disses conservatives]

vanity ^ | April 17, 2007 | writeblock

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

Ahh the resident spelling/grammar troll rears its ugly head. I work with numbers not letters. So long as my point gets across that is all that matters to me, you on the other had obviously are a tool.

[Retired COB]

You do this in order to deflect blame from where it really belongs—with the pro-life ingrates who voted him out of office

I place the blame on Santorum. He made a huge error in judgement, and he paid the price for it. He had to know it was the wrong thing to do, and did it anyhow.

There are a lot of folks on this site trying to rationalize supporting a baby killer for president (or as Santorum did - supporting a baby killer for Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee). I can not follow their twisted logic.

If you believe that abortion equates to the murder of a human being, you can not in good conscience vote for anyone who supports the other side...directly (voting for Rudy) or indirectly (voting for Rick).

[admiralsn]

California will not vote for a Republican as President these days, for more reasons than abortion.

Going back just a few elections, Bush (88), Reagan (84, 80), Ford (76), Nixon (72, 68, 60), Eisenhower (56, 52) ALL won California. Sure times have changed, but who is to say they can't and won't change again? To give in is to give up.

[The Pack Knight]

When you have a candidate that does not share any of your principles and you vote for them, you have given up all your principles and have rendered yourself voteless. Once people are browbeaten to vote for a person based on unproven logic, that we just want to win, you can never go back.

Some people seem to forget that the modern conservative movement was begun with an election Republicans lost, that being 1964.

Conversely, the historical Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, and the way Republicans governed afterwards, led to the situation we have today, where it's going to be very hard to convince the electorate that Republicans, if elected, will follow their traditional limited government principles in the future.

There's simply no logic to the argument that electing a Republican, any Republican, is the only way to further the conservative movement.

[Paperdoll]

Oooooo...Southern boys have thin skins, and no senses of humor! LOL!

[dforest]

I think times have changed there a lot since Reagan.

I agree we shouldn’t give up, but we can’t become liberals to do it.

Look at Arnold, he’s morphed. He won, but he pushes liberal policies.

[dforest]

There's simply no logic to the argument that electing a Republican, any Republican, is the only way to further the conservative movement.

I am in total agreement with you and you said it better than me

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

This is like a child endlessly asking “why?”

Obviously, the future can’t be predicted. Whether or not Rudy will repeal the ban is no more provable than the question of whether or not George Bush was going to nuke Albuquerque back in 2000 (not that anyone asked such a question... but if they did, nobody could prove that he would not).

Rudy Giuliani is the most rabidly pro-abortion presidential candidate the Republican party has ever produced. And he’s stated his support for late-term infanticide on multiple occasions in the past. Of course it logically follows that he would act to repeal this ban. Ending every sentence in a discussion with the words “prove it” doesn’t do a thing to change that reality.

[Cicero]

I didn’t say WHO neglected to vote for Santorum, because I’m not entirely sure. Libertarian conservatives blame the social conservatives for staying home last November, and social conservatives blame the libertarians. Everyone seems to want to blame somebody else, as we have seen here in FR for the past half year.

But what is evident is that enough people stayed home to give Casey the victory. Casey had a famous name, and the tide was with him, but Santorum might have won if not for all that ridiculous sniping at him by the various conservative factions.

[penowa]

I know it’s anecdotal evidence, but my b-i-l married into an enormous Italian-American Catholic family in W PA and lots of them are into local Democrat politics. For years, they not only supported Santorum, but worked to elect him while still remaining registered Democrats. In ‘06, I was really distressed when I learned that they all were dropping him like a hot potato and jumping on the Casey bandwagon. Despite all my pleading, cajoling and arm-twisting, I could not convince a single one of them to vote for him. They still felt the same way about him they always had, admitted he’d done a bang-up job, but because Casey was a Democrat, Santorum no longer existed in their universe. They informed me it was not just them, but all the Reagan Democrats that they knew.

[Liz]

Rooty Rooters incessantly fawn over, and flack, this flawed candidate. No matter how hard we resist, the Rooters insist on inflict this guy on the rest of us.

The Rooters show signs of being victims of Stockholm Syndrome-——a psychological disturbance found among hostages.

Stockholm Syndrome is characterized by unwarranted feelings of loyalty to abusive captors.

Sap-happy Rooters ignore the obvious, succumbing to bafflegab manufactured by Rooty to keep them in his power.

What else would explain the Rooters' airheaded rationalization of Rooty’s disturbed thinking about killing the unborn on the taxpayer’s dime?

Looking past Rooty’s gun-grabbing, gay worship, draft-dodging, and ignoring Rooty's serial marriages, and public adultery are also part of the syndrome.

[TommyDale]

So “Stockholm Syndrome” is actually what we commonly refer to as “stupid”?

[Liz]

Heheh-—you could say that.

[Liberty Valance]

well...

[RKBA Democrat]

“Methinks the big guy’s patience is wearing thin. :-)”

Yep. I’m getting that sense. The behavior of the socialists has been both bold and rude of late.

[RKBA Democrat]

Thank you.

[RKBA Democrat]

“Democrats lie and mischaracterize as easily as they breath.”

Some do. Not all.

[MHGinTN]

You’re right, I should have limited that to the leadership of the democrat party.

[RKBA Democrat]

“You’re right, I should have limited that to the leadership of the democrat party.”

And then it would have been a 99% accurate statement. Thanks.

[gonewt]

note that a President Rudy (heaven forbid) would sign a repeal of the ban on partial birth abortion

Really? Have you read Giuliani's comments on today's court decision?