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.
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).
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.
Oooooo...Southern boys have thin skins, and no senses of humor! LOL!
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.
I am in total agreement with you and you said it better than me
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.
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.
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.
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.
So “Stockholm Syndrome” is actually what we commonly refer to as “stupid”?
Heheh-—you could say that.
well...
“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.
Thank you.
“Democrats lie and mischaracterize as easily as they breath.”
Some do. Not all.
You’re right, I should have limited that to the leadership of the democrat party.
“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.
Really? Have you read Giuliani's comments on today's court decision?
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.