Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/18/2007 10:04:32 AM PDT by writeblock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
To: writeblock

Excuse me, this should read “both Bush and Santorum backed SPECTER.” Sorry.


2 posted on 04/18/2007 10:06:04 AM PDT by writeblock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
Ungrateful social conservatives, vowing to seek revenge for his failure to back Toomey, took it out on him in 2006 by voting him out of office.

Prove it.

Meanwhile, I note that a President Rudy (heaven forbid) would sign a repeal of the ban on partial birth abortion, making this decision moot.

3 posted on 04/18/2007 10:06:48 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
First, they believed Toomey had little chance to win in the general election

There's the flaw in your reasoning.

4 posted on 04/18/2007 10:07:05 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
"..And they appreciate that he stands the chance of winning big..."

I disagree completely- I think stands a chance of LOSING big to Hilliary

5 posted on 04/18/2007 10:08:01 AM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock; jellybean; Spiff; onyx; EternalVigilance
They fail to appreciate that the name of the game is to win elections.

The name of the game is to ELECT CONSERVATIVES.

6 posted on 04/18/2007 10:09:09 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock

Um....how many lower court Judges were locked up in Specter’s committee when he ran it? A bunch, IIRC, and they’re gone now.


7 posted on 04/18/2007 10:11:36 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Don't ask.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock

Are you aware that the guy who beat Santorum — Casey — ran as a pro-lifer?


8 posted on 04/18/2007 10:11:47 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock

Thats right kids liner up and support our center left overloards so the GOP can pick up seats...


10 posted on 04/18/2007 10:14:00 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
The Trouble is the threat to the Traditional Family unit that Guiliani represents. Currently democrats do not support the traditional family unit of father, mother and child. They do not acknowledge that marriage is between one man a one woman. I don't think Guiliani would support that definition and bent to the alternate family crowd.

Since he supports partial birth abortion, I'm sorry, I cannot support him.

I think the Republicans need someone outside that current field that will stand on the truth and not bend with the wind. That's my two cents.

13 posted on 04/18/2007 10:16:42 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
Ungrateful social conservatives, vowing to seek revenge for his failure to back Toomey, took it out on him in 2006 by voting him out of office. Santorum took the hit for taking a course of action that was wise both politically and morally--and far more principled than the peevish social conservatives could appreciate at the time.

I'm sure the fact that he was #1 on the liberals' hit list had NOTHING to do with his loosing. Nope, it was those darn "peevish" social conservatives.

15 posted on 04/18/2007 10:18:10 AM PDT by The Blitherer ("What the devil is keeping the Yanks?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
If Rudi wanted the support of Pro-life people he would be pro-life.

We are not a complicated constituency, either you value life or you do not get our vote.
18 posted on 04/18/2007 10:19:43 AM PDT by msnimje (True Conservatives will not support a pro-abortion candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
This outcome today happened because we elected a pro-life President.

How you can use it as proof that we need to elect a pro-abortion President is beyond me.

20 posted on 04/18/2007 10:21:11 AM PDT by Oliver Optic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
So we should vote FOR someone who supports PBA--to make sure that PBA's are banned? Give me a break.

As a JulieAnnie apologist--your skewed logic is nothing more than GROPING for reasons to support a liberal.

This was one of the more pathetic postings I have seen on here in a long time.

21 posted on 04/18/2007 10:22:59 AM PDT by stockstrader (We need a conservative President who will be a 'pit-bull' in the War on Liberalism too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
Santorum took the hit for taking a course of action that was wise both politically and morally--and far more principled than the peevish social conservatives could appreciate at the time.

I disagree.

Santorum compromised his principals for political expediency. I am convinced that the longer an elected official stays in office - the more they "grow" leftwards. It's probably as good an argument for term limits as can be made.

If you exchange your principals for political power you are a loser.

I hope Senator Santorum has learned a valuable lesson from this, repents his sins, and returns to the political arena as a "No Compromise" Conservative.

24 posted on 04/18/2007 10:25:54 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
Oh, please.

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. - CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999

Guiliani is not going to be good for pro-lifers. Period.

You can call a turd a rose all you want, it's still a turd.

28 posted on 04/18/2007 10:27:55 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock

How very deceitful of you. Prove that conservatives voted Rick out of office.


30 posted on 04/18/2007 10:29:36 AM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock

I didn’t even read the article, it’s not the story.

This is the story:

Thank you, former Republican Congress. Thank you for passing the partial birth abortion law. Thank you President Bush. Thank you for signing the law, and appointing conservative judges who have upheld the law.

This is the first victory for the pro-life side in a long time.

And, it’s Bush’s “fault.”


34 posted on 04/18/2007 10:38:09 AM PDT by SaxxonWoods ("We're the government, and we're here to hurt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock

What you say is partly true. I dislike Specter intensely, but he did shepherd those two supreme court appointments through the Senate successfully, as he promised to do, even if he was talking out of the other side of his mouth to the press while he did it.

Personally, I think Bush and Santorum were mistaken to have backed Specter. But I also think it was a grave tragedy that conservatives let Santorum be defeated as a result. He made ONE MISTAKE, and otherwise has been a very reliable pro-life conservative. Casey voted pro-life in the recent stem cell vote, but I don’t trust him to be as reliable as Santorum, and he will vote with the Dems on most issues.

Letting a Democrat win because Rick made one mistake was a very stupid thing to do. We lost one of our best senators with considerable seniority as a result, all because people’s noses were out of joint.


51 posted on 04/18/2007 10:50:16 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock
They fail to appreciate that the name of the game is to win elections. If we lose them, we lose everything, including any hope at all of furthering our principles in the long run.

That pre-supposes that Giuliani will have strong support among those states that are teetering on the edge between red and blue. It's not clear that the 'moderates' and independent voters would support Giuliani over the Democrat candidate, but it's clear that he wouldn't have as much conservative support, and to win as a Republican you have to have the MAJORITY of conservative support no matter how much other support you may get.

52 posted on 04/18/2007 10:50:39 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writeblock; Howlin; carlo3b; girlangler; KoRn; Shortstop7; Lunatic Fringe; Darnright; babygene; ...
Ungrateful social conservatives, vowing to seek revenge for his failure to back Toomey, took it out on him in 2006 by voting him out of office.

Your contempt for social conservatives reflects poorly on your candidate, Rudy.


▲ Click the box to see where he stands on the issues. ▲

Draft Fred Thompson

If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.

CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.

58 posted on 04/18/2007 10:55:23 AM PDT by jellybean (FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT! Proud to be an Ann-droid and a Steyn-aholic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson