Posted on 04/18/2007 10:04:30 AM PDT by writeblock
There is a political lesson behind today's Supreme Ct decision on partial birth abortion that some of you who now oppose Rudy Giuliani need to think about.
Back in 2004, Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter in PA for the nomination to the U.S. Senate. Both Rick Santorum and George Bush backed Santorum. They did so for three reasons. First, they believed Toomey had little chance to win in the general election whereas it was virtually certain Specter would win if nominated. Second, the Senate was too evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans to risk losing even one seat--which would mean losing control of the Supreme Ct. nominating process as well. It was no time for risk-taking by backing a conservative like Toomey who was a long shot to win in a state trending leftward. Third, they made sure Specter would cooperate with the President if he ascended to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress.
Specter, as expected, won in the general election and the Republicans kept control of the Senate by a narrow margin. Specter kept his word and ushered-through his committee the two Supreme Court nominees, Roberts and Alito. The rest is history.
I mention all this because Santorum--the real unsung hero behind today's Supreme Court decision--paid a heavy price for his backing of Specter--even though he was the main impetus behind the new law banning partial birth abortions. 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.
A similar situation is going on regarding the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani. Many conservatives understand that we must win back the Congress for us to be successful in achieving our principles in the long run. They appreciate that only Rudy Giuliani promises to win states that are now either trending left or wholly in the Democratic column. And they appreciate that he stands the chance of winning big, thus returning the Congress to the GOP. But as was the case with Santorum, a core of disgruntled social conservatives are out to sabotage Rudy's candidacy at any cost. This is myopic--and not unlike their reading of what Santorum was doing back in 2004 when he supported Specter. 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.
The POTUS is about ONE issue: SCOTUS nominees. Who do you really think Rudy would choose as his “model”: Souter, Ginsberg, or Scalia?
If you say, “Scalia”, then I would like to see your proof.
You keep spraying this claim, but no proof.
Back in 2004, Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter in PA for the nomination to the U.S. Senate. Both Rick Santorum and George Bush backed Santorum.
Clearly you meant that they supported Specter - an innocuous error, but a portender of more egregious ones to come.
They did so for three reasons. First, they believed Toomey had little chance to win in the general election whereas it was virtually certain Specter would win if nominated.
Nonsense - do you even know who the 'Rats offered up? "Awful" Joe Hoeffel, so far left (ACU rating of 7) he would make Marx blush. Awful Joe would be going against a candidate who had won three terms in congress (by successively larger margin each time)in a democrat majority district in eastern PA, supported enthusiastically by an energized GOP base. Thus, Toomey would have owned the T, the West and the Northeast - even swamping the GOP in Philly would not have been enought to save Awful Joe.
Second, the Senate was too evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans to risk losing even one seat--which would mean losing control of the Supreme Ct. nominating process as well.
Nonsense as well - everyone knew the GOP was going to gain seats that election cycle. Go back and read the FR threads on the subject at the time. If the GOP had 65 senators, we would hear the same argument from your ilk that we can't risk any seat when the veto-proof 67-seat majority is in sight.
Meanwhile, the GOP continues its leftward drift into obscurity...
It was no time for risk-taking by backing a conservative like Toomey who was a long shot to win in a state trending leftward.
This argument, already debunked above, shows you to be either 1) not a conservative, or 2) a person with no moral compass. Either way, you are part of the problem for the GOP, not part of the solution.
Third, they made sure Specter would cooperate with the President if he ascended to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress.
The biggest whopper of them all - your suggestion is that the GOP, after supporting a RINo over a conservative to begin with, forced Specter to do this out of some fealty to conservative principles. Rather, they did it because the GOP grassroots FORCED them to, and for no other reason. Let me explain...
One day after Arlen dispatched of "Awful" Joe Hoeffel in the general, he did an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that was basically a shot across Bush's bow, in effect warning him not to send anyone to the committee that would support overturning RvW. He inferred that he would give any such candidate the Bork treatment. There clearly was NO agreement with the GOP to confirm conservative judges at this point.
Conservatives everywhere, but especially in PA feeling the sting of Toomey's loss, went bananas. Every member of the Senate judiciary committee was flooded with faxes, call and emails, urging them to deny Specter the chair (which he was in line for) and give it instead to Jon Kyl from Arizona, #2 in line and an ardent pro-lifer.
In the end, Specter cut a deal - a very quiet one - with Bill Frist. He would keep the SJC chair only on the condition of pushing through any BUSH SC nominations.
It's a good example of how the conservative grassroots can positively affect public policy through old-fashioned activism. The same thing happened after the Miers debacle - RINOs of FR swore up and down we could never get a true conservative like Alito on the court - you saw how good their advice was then.
Therefore, he did not make a deal to get elected, but rather to keep the SJC chair which was going to be denied to him, due to a conservative uprising.
The lesson is clear - the only way RINOs move to the right is when forced. The GOP is finding that out now in the '08 runup
Specter, as expected, won in the general election and the Republicans kept control of the Senate by a narrow margin. Specter kept his word and ushered-through his committee the two Supreme Court nominees, Roberts and Alito. The rest is history.
Unfortunately, it is revisionist history, as explained above.
I mention all this because Santorum--the real unsung hero behind today's Supreme Court decision--paid a heavy price for his backing of Specter--even though he was the main impetus behind the new law banning partial birth abortions.
Santorum is a good man who unfortunately contracted a good case of Potomac fever, and thus supported party over principle despite being continually warned what the ultimate outcome would likely be.
That being said, seeing as how he lost in a 60-40 landslide, it wasn't disgruntled conservatives that sent Rick packing. He likely would have lost anyway even if he had supported Toomey, simply due to it being a down GOP year, a year when a popular 'Rat governor turned out the Philly vote in record numbers, and facing a 'Rat candidate with huge name recogntiion thought by most PA voters to be pro-gun and anti-abortion.
In Bob Casey Jr., Santorum was faced against a candidate whose namesake father is probably the most famous ardently pro-life Democratic policitian of the past quarter century. I'll bet in PA, where the senior citizen population is much larger than most states. many thought they were voting for the old man. Bobby Jr. is not his father (he'll vote however Dingy Harry tells him to vote), but his father's good name with social cons in this state certainly didn't hurt him.
Onward...
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.
Hack liberal writing at its finest, filled with complete contempt and derision for the GOP base. Again, completely debunked above.
And now to the meat of the issue...
A similar situation is going on regarding the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani. Many conservatives understand that we must win back the Congress for us to be successful in achieving our principles in the long run. They appreciate that only Rudy Giuliani promises to win states that are now either trending left or wholly in the Democratic column. And they appreciate that he stands the chance of winning big, thus returning the Congress to the GOP.
Not a chance. None.
If Giuliani is the GOP nominee, it virtually guarantees a third-party challenge by a social conservative - splitting the GOP vote and handing the Presidency to the 'Beast. All pro-Rudy polls showing him winning CA/NY/PA/OH, etc. are based on a static two-party analysis, which I guarantee will not take place if he is the nominee.
The conventional wisdom of the Rudy supporters is 180 degrees backwards. The only way President Rodham is elected (with negatives in the 40% range - only Newt is higher among national pols) is for the GOP to split via one of the RINO candidates.
You want to defeat HRC? So do I. The ONLY way it happens is to keep the GOP coalition together (fiscal cons - social cons - war hawks - libertarians - country clubbers) while fielding a candidate with crossover appeal. Actually, a conservative nominee could help us by pulling a RINO like Bloomberg, who (IMHO) will draw more from the 'Rats than the GOP, into a three-way race.
At this point, Fred Thompson is the one candidate who can save the GOP from itself. If he decides not to run, the GOP is doomed in '08 - one way or the other.
But as was the case with Santorum, a core of disgruntled social conservatives are out to sabotage Rudy's candidacy at any cost.
LOL - quoting Rudy's actual statements and history is "sabotage". Too funny...
This is myopic--and not unlike their reading of what Santorum was doing back in 2004 when he supported Specter. 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.
With all due respect, you are not the ideal individual to be writing about "principles" on this site. Best wishes.
This is a conservative site. Buh bye troll.
It's just as well that Guiliani is wrong on virtually every issue. As such, all of the single-issue folks will join together to prevent the liberal scumbag from ever representing the GOP as it's nominative leader.
The updated title is a vast improvement in truthiness.
Hah!
Gosh am I lame. “Writeblock” —a cute play on “Block the Right”. It didn’t hit me until I saw your post!
I guess him we can ignore!
It’s time to start thinking outside the box.
For that reason, I completely and wholeheartedly support the draft Fred Thompson movement. THAT is something no one has done in years...and it’s, ahem, thinking outside the box.
P.S. I’m NOT a one issue voter, never have been.
AMEN!!!!!!
If that guy wasn’t a cancer on FreeRepublic, he at least was a suspicious polyp.
pro-life ingrates?
Wow! I have one question for you. Why are you even part of FREEPERS????? I am not saying that you can’t have differences but you seem to have a huge distaste for conservatives and obviously pro-life FRiends.
Nope, there is no flaw... Snowballs have better chances in hell than Toomey had of surviving the Philly voters and winning a statewide run in 04.
i have been struck by the condescension and outright contempt for prolifers dripping from many rudyfans posts. it is unbelievable.
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rudiphilia seems to be inherently pro-abortion.
there is definitely something to that....
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. In otherwards, we can't say we will vote for Rudy without knowing that his candidacy alone is without principles. If we do that, the cause of conservatism will be gone for a long time, or maybe forever. Rudy will not further our principles because he doesn't share our principles. Neither do Republicans that support him.
If Rudy gets the nomination it would be better for our cause if he loses, proving Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.
In the end, Democrats are not going to vote for Rudy. They will vote for Democrats because they don't trust Republicans.
Without conservatives, Rudy is dead meat. But...we know you can win without us, so we have been told.
Guess I came late to the thread...writeblock is blocked:)
Not sure if this hase been covered yet by someone...but I’ll tell ya, I could HUG Brit Hume. This morning when the SCOTUS decision was announced he was discussing it on FOX. He very calmly, VERY graphically let out a few details about why “partial-birth” abortion is so gruesome.
Kathryn Lopez on NRO’s The Corner, noticed it as well:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
We will be crawling with the Rodham-rodent’s dnc minions in the coming months ... I don’t envy the mods’ work in the coming political season. Democrats lie and mischaracterize as easily as they breath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.