The kind of people who ride Rudy's coattails would repeal.
And I doubt he would want to go there anyway.
Yeah, we'll take your word for it.
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.
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.
Rudy is ahead of Hillary in many blue and purple states—in NJ, PA, CT, RI, FL, MI—and has a good chance of winning CA. Together with the mountain states and the South, he’d win in a landslide. That would translate into a GOP Congress, with Boehner and McConnell at the helm instead of Pelosi or Reid. For those of you who fail to realize it, a winner at the head of the ticket, whether he leans to the left or the right, would mean a BIG WIN for conservative values in the long run. Only the politically naive don’t understand this or resent it. Politics is a game of the possible. No matter how much you may prefer a Hunter or a Thompson, the name of the game is victory at the polls—or else you lose everything, the legislature, Supreme Court nominees, the Dept. of Justice, the war on terror—you name it. The stakes are too high to risk supporting losers.
PROVE IT!
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.
The stakes are too high to risk supporting pro-abortion gungrabbing LIBERALS.
He favors partial birth abortion and has said so. He has a 100% rating from NARAL. He would even pay to have his own grandchild delivered intact until the head lodged in the cervix, at which point the fetal skull would be punctured and the child killed.
“The name of the game is to ELECT CONSERVATIVES”
You elect a conservative Congress by putting an attractive candidate at the head of the ticket—somebody who can win blue and purple states. Otherwise you lose everything—and keep control in the hands of Pelosi and Reid. Reread my post. Start looking at the big picture.
“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.
You elect a conservative Congress by putting an attractive CONSERVATIVE at the head of the ticket.
How very deceitful of you. Prove that conservatives voted Rick out of office.
The Democrats’ successful filibustering of the District Court and Appellate Court judges took place during the Judiciary Chairmanship of Sen. Hatch, not Specter. Maybe Hatch isn’t really a conservative either ?
“Are you aware that the guy who beat Santorum — Casey — ran as a pro-lifer?”
Of course I’m aware of it. I live in PA. It’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Pro-lifers never forgave Santorum for backing Specter—though it was the smart thing to do politically and morally. It made Roberts and Alito possible. But pro-lifers split their allegiance—even though Casey could have no political influence whatsoever on his party in terms of stopping abortions whereas Santorum had a strong record of fighting hard for pro-life legislation. But many ungrateful social conservatives—people who can’t see politically past their own noses— abandoned Rick because of his backing of Specter.
“Thats right kids liner up and support our center left overloards so the GOP can pick up seats...”
...and maybe win back the House and Senate. The alternative is to stick with Gingrich or Hunter or Thompson—and lose everything.
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.”
“Don’t count your Hatches before the’re boobied” we used to say. I try not to go around and slap “not a conservative” on people, at least not Hatch. He was, however, ineffective and prone to folding like a cheap suit when the Democrats complained. Doesn’t speak one way or another about his conservatism.
“We are talking about who will replace Bush. Your boy Rudy would sign the repeal.”
There would be no repeal if Rudy’s elected—because he would win back one chamber of Congress for the GOP at the very least—probably both. And I doubt he would want to go there anyway.
I'd rather lose with Thompson than win by betraying virtually every principle I have. If Guiliani wins, it will "prove" once and for all that conservatives can be taken for granted and that the GOP is free to embrace liberalism. I'd rather wander in the wilderness, so to speak, for a few years than submit to that kind of cultural war defeat.
The kind of people who ride Rudy's coattails would repeal.
And I doubt he would want to go there anyway.
Yeah, we'll take your word for it.
“Please don’t confuse the Rudybots with facts.”
What facts? I’m waiting. Here are the real facts—Rudy’s the only candidate who can win blue or purple states. His favorables are higher than those of any other candidate in either party—and he has the backing of the Italian-American vote which is 10% of the electorate and is located on either coast and in mid-Atlantic states. Those are my facts—what are yours?
Judging from the way you've forgotten that, I'd say it worked like a charm for some people.
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.